Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies for absence were tabled from Councillor Colin Brotherton.  Councillor Michael Brookes substituting.

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

With the permission of the committee the Chairman signed public and exempt minutes of the previous meeting held on the 4^th April 2017

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

A collective standing declaration of interest is noted in respect of Lincolnshire County Councillors Michael Brookes, Paul Skinner and Alison Austin who attended and participated in all items on the agenda.

A further collective declaration of interest is noted in respect of Councillors Alison Austin, Colin Brotherton, David Brown, Michael Cooper, Jonathan Noble and Sue Ransome in respect of their membership of the SELLP which is referenced within planning applications.

Councillor Michael Brookes declared a conflict of interest in planning application B 16 0436 in respect of an election donation received from an objector and confirmed he would absent himself from the meeting and taken no part in the deliberation or decision making on the item.

Councillor Brookes further declared he had been in attendance at Kirton Parish Councils when both applications on the agenda had been discussed but confirmed he had taken no part in any of the deliberations and that he had also been in attendance at Sutterton Parish Council when planning application B 17 0041 was discussed and confirmed he had taken no part in any deliberation.

Councillor Yvonne Stevens declared she had been approached by a member of the public in respect of planning application B 17 0037 but she had made no response to the approach and offered no comment.

Councillor Stevens further declared that a member of her family resided in the vicinity of the site for planning application B 17 0041 and as such whilst she did not feel the need to absent from the meeting, she would abstain when it came to the determination of the application.

Councillor Michael Cooper declared he was the Ward Member for planning application B 16 0463 and had been in attendance at Bicker Parish Council when the application had been discussed, but confirmed he had taken no part in any deliberation.

Councillor Cooper also declared that the Parish Councillor speaking on planning application B 17 0061 was known to him but that he had held no discussions with any party in respect of the application.

Councillor Alison Austin declared an interest in planning application B 17 0037 in that in her role as County Councillor for the site area she had been spoken to by Portfolio Holders as Lincolnshire County Council but had offered no comment and had passed all the comments she had received onto the applicant.  The Monitoring Officer had viewed the communication passed on and confirmed that Councillor Austin had no reason not to determine the application. 

Councillor Austin further declared in interest in planning application B 17 0018 in that she had been in attendance at Kirton Parish Council when the application had been discussed but had taken no part in the deliberation.

Councillor Austin furthermore declared she would be absenting herself from the meeting for planning application B 17 0127 because she both knew the applicant and the application site was within her own postal code.

Councillor Barrie Pierpoint declared that he had been approached by the applicant for planning application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

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.

No Public Questions were tabled.

It is recorded that at this point in the proceedings the Development Control Manager advised Committee that a judgement from the Supreme Court had been handed down on 10^th May which was after the Committee papers had been released.  The judgement referred to a Court of Appeal judgement which officers had been referring committee to over the previous year.

The judgement was to do with if a policy was a housing supply policy and the weight to be given to para.14 in the Framework which was the ‘tilted balance’ presumption in favour of sustainable development.  The case was pertinent to all housing applications on the agenda today since there was no five year supply and it could impact on any weight given to perceived conflicts with policies

The Development Control Manager advised that the relevance would be referred to in each presentation as relevant.

It is noted that Councillor Michael Brookes absented himself from the meeting at this point in the proceedings and took no part in the following planning application B 16 0463

Proposed residential development of up to 40 dwellings (outline application, all matters reserved).

Land off St Swithins Close   Bicker   Lincs.

G Barkwith.

Outline Planning Permission

Outline application for the erection of up to 40 dwellings (all matters

reserved)                          

Land off St Swithins Close, Bicker, Lincolnshire

G Barkworth

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report with no updates provided to the report tabled.

No representation was received in respect of this application.

It was moved by Councillor Stephen Woodliffe and seconded by Councillor Barrie Pierpoint that the application be granted in line with officer recommendation and the conditions therein.

Vote:    In Favour.    2                Against.      9              Abstention.   0

RESOLVED:  The motion to grant the application fell.

It was moved by Councillor Jonathan Noble and seconded by Councillor Michael Cooper that the application be refused contrary to officer recommendation as it was contrary to polices G1, CO1 and H4.

Vote:    In Favour.    9                Against.      2              Abstention.   0

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused contrary to officer recommendation for the following reasons:

The proposed development would have a detrimental visual impact on the character of this part of the open countryside and the unique Fen character of the environs of the village of Bicker by reason of it’s pronounced siting and intrusion into the open Lincolnshire countryside.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies G1 and  CO1 of the Adopted Local Plan.

The proposal would see the introduction of dwellings outside the settlement and in the open countryside in a highly unsustainable location. The allowance of new dwellings in this location would result in future occupiers of the properties relying totally on the use of motor vehicles to meet their everyday needs. It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policy C01 and in conflict with the sustainability objectives contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and the settlement hierarchy in policy H4 of the Boston interim Local Plan.

It is noted that the Chairman adjourned the meeting for a period of ten minutes at this point in the proceedings and that on reconvention of the meeting, Councillor Michael Brookes re joined the meeting and took part in all the remaining business on the agenda.

Demolition of garages and the construction of 2no. pairs of semi detached two storey dwellings on land off Robin Hoods Walk and a detached two and a half storey dwelling on Robin Hoods Walk.

Robin Hoods Walk  Boston  Lincolnshire   PE21 9EP

Taylor Made Services

Full Planning Permission

Demolition of garages and the construction of 2no.pairs of semi  detached  two storey dwellings on land off Robin Hoods Walk and a detached two and a half storey dwelling on Robin Hoods Walk  (5 dwellings).         

Robin Hoods Walk, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 9EP

Taylor Made Services

The Development Control Manager presented the report confirming the history of the site and the refusal of a previous application. 

Updates to the report in the agenda were tabled and members were advised that photographic evidence had been received past the deadline for issuing to members which included photographs of traffic movements and illegal parking along Robin Hoods Walk and at the entrance to the application site. A further letter of objection had been received from 26 Oak Cresent citing concerns already expressed by other objectors including traffic problems on Robin Hoods Walk.

Committee were reminded that a petition had been submitted which needed to be received and taken into consideration during deliberation. 

Furthermore members were advised of a typograpical error on page 30 under paragrpah 7.23  within the last senteance which needed to read

‘size and appearance is consistent’

as against

‘size and appearance are not consistent’

Representation was received in objection to the application which included:

Concern was noted in respect of a loss of highway safety and congestion which would arise from the additional traffic movements, which would be caused by the development.  Loss of privacy and light, loss of overlooking and loss of amenity were also stated together with concern on a risk of subsidence; an inadequate infrastructure for additional drainage, sewage and water pressure requirements.

Committee were asked to recognise the high volume of existing traffic along Robin Hoods Walks which included vehicles movement to the schools’ cemetery and most importantly to and from the Fire Station.  The Bowls Club also generated increased traffic.

Members were advised that 13 years previously an application to change a shop to a takeaway in the vicinity of the application site, was rejected on highways grounds and on loss of amenity:  the objector asked that it be noted that the traffic volume was considerably higher now than it had been then.

The previous proposal on the site for 9 houses had been rejected on highway grounds and loss of amenity and quality of life to residents.  Despite improvements to that plan – the same issues remained. 

Referencing the 26 garages the objector stated that they were not regularly visited and did not interrupt traffic flows:  committee were asked to agree that homes did generate traffic flow with deliveries and visitor cars.

Further concerns referenced included the bin store which would be adjacent to the entrance and bins could be displaced causing problems for pedestrians and drivers along Robin Hoods Walk and the objector said that the site was backland development as it was ‘landlocked’ and the development would degrade the community and the services and utilities of the long term residents:  furthermore the space acted as a buffer as the existing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Erection of a Lidl store (Use Class A1), car and cycle parking with access and associated works including landscaping.

Land to the North of B&Q Store

Westbridge Road  Wyberton  Boston  PE21 7JD

Lidl UK GbmH

Full Planning Permission

Erection of a Lidl store (Use Class A1), car and cycle parking with access

and associated works including landscaping.      

Land to the north of B&Q Store, Westbridge Road, Wyberton, Boston,

PE21 7JD

Lidl UK GmbH

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and advised members of additional information to be incorporated within the report tabled in respect of Condition 2 whereby the last bullet point on the list should read ‘Land Contamination Appendix 5’.

No representation was received in respect of this application.

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

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:

§   Location plan 143/61/1_SLP01 (1/8 )

§   Proposed site plan 7311L-09/D (2/8 )

§   Proposed site plan 7311L-08/F  (3/ 8)

§   Proposed site plan 7311L-11  (4/8 )

§   Proposed elevations 7311L-13 (58/ )

§   Proposed floor plans 7311L-12 (6/8 )

§   Detailed Landscape Proposals (7/ 8)

§   Design and Access Statement 143/61/1

§   Travel Plan GW/16402/TP/1

§   Transport Assessment GW/16402/TA/1

§   Site Investigation Report 503-R-01

§   Preliminary Ecological Appraisal CLE20418/005/01

§   Flood Risk Assessment, Surface Water Strategy and Sustainable Systems Assessment – Proposed Retail Development Westbridge Road Boston (Part 1)

§   Flood Risk Assessment, Surface Water Strategy and Sustainable Systems Assessment – Proposed Retail Development Westbridge Road Boston (Part 2)

§   Erratum to Flood Risk Assessment, Surface Water Strategy and Sustainable Systems Assessment – Proposed Retail Development Westbridge Road Boston received

§   Phillips Lighting Factor Rev 2 received 28 March 2017

§   Proposed Lighting Layout 0244074710/B (8b/8 )

§   Planning and Retail Statement 143/61/1

§   Land Contamination Appendix 1

§   Land Contamination Appendix 2

§   Land Contamination Appendix 3

§   Land Contamination Appendix 4

§   Land Contamination Appendix 5

            Reason:          To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved details and to accord with Adopted Local Plan Policy G1.

3.               No built development shall take place until details of the materials proposed to be used in the construction of the building and all external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

            Reason:          To ensure that the new building is in keeping with the character of the building / area and to accord with Adopted Local Plan Policy G1.

4.               The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment dated December 2016, as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Erection of six detached dwellings with associated garages and access.

Land adjacent to 21 Horseshoe Lane  Kirton  Boston  PE20 1LJ

Mrs Yvonne Landau

Full Planning Permission

Erection of six detached dwellings with associated garages and   access

Land adjacent to 2 Land adjacent to 21, Horseshoe Lane, Kirton, Boston, Lincolnshire,           PE20 1LJ

Mrs Yvonne Landau, Gemini Properties Ventures Ltd

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application and confirmed that there were no updates to report and confirmed that the submission was a revised scheme of the initial approval in 2015.

No representation was received in respect of the application.

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

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

RESOLVED:    That the application be granted in line with officer recommendation and subject to the conditions and reasons as follows:

1.         The development hereby permitted shall be started within three years of the    date of this permission.

Reason:          To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004)

2.         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the application received on 14 December 2016 and 18 April 2017 in accordance with associated plans referenced;

§   Ref: L13-02 S-01 B Location Plan

§   Ref: L13-02 S-02 D Site Plan Proposed

§   Ref: L13-02 S-03 D Streetscapes & Views

§   Ref: L13-02 S-04 D Plots Views

§   Ref: L13-02 S-05 D Street Views

§   Ref: L13-02 P 11a House Type 1

§   Ref: L13-02 P15a House Type 4

§   Ref: L13-02 P16a  House Type 5

§   Ref: L13-02 P17 Garages

§   19572_OGL Rev 0 Topographical Survey

Flood Risk Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Strategy dated 28 February 2017.

Reason:          To ensure that the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved details, in the interest of residential amenity and to comply with saved Policy G1 of the adopted Boston Local Plan.

     Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a 

     Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in   

     writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be 

     carried out in accordance with the approved Plan which shall include but

     not necessarily be restricted to the following details;

           Details of the siting/parking areas of all vehicles of site operatives and

           visitors;

           Measures to avoid disturbing nesting birds;

           The loading and unloading arrangements for heavy plant and   

           machinery;

           Details of the siting of all temporary contractors compounds;

           The location of extent and duration of any temporary stockpiling areas;

           A tree protection plan and measures to protect trees during the    

           construction which shall be in accordance with BS 5837; Tees in      

           Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction 2012.

           Measures to prevent mud being deposited on the surrounding highway;

           A programme of implementation for items (a) – (g)

Reason:          This is a pre-commencement condition that is necessary to protect the amenities of the nearby residents and to comply with saved Policy G1 of the adopted Boston Local Plan.

     Details  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Change of use from residential dwelling (Class C3) to residential dwelling and childminding business (max.no. of 6 children between the ages of 0-4).

19 Cleymond Chase  Kirton  Boston  Lincolnshire  PE20 1DP

Darren King

Full Planning Permission

Change of use from residential dwelling (class C3) to residential dwelling

and childminding business (sui generis) (max no. of 6 children between

the ages of 0-4 years)

19 Cleymond Chase, Kirton, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 7AP

Darren King

The Development Control Manager presented the report and advised updates to the report tabled.

Committee were advised that a number of residents who had initially tabled their objection to the application had withdrawn the objections having spoken with the applicant and having been made aware of the full intent of the application. 

Some petitions tabled in objection together with 8 letters of objection had now been retracted.

Furthermore a letter of support with 19 signatures had been received and there remained only 5 outstanding objections.

Representation was received from the applicant which included:

Committee were advised that the applicant had been shocked at the level of initial objections and realised that he needed to speak to them individually to explain how the business would operate.   He went to all his neighbours with the exception of three:  two were on holiday and one already operated a similar business.   During the visits the applicant had fully explained how the business would operate and encouraged the residents to ask as many questions as they wished:  he had answered them all and offered reassurance of the minimal level of impact it would mean for neighbours. 

At the end of the visits the applicant advised he had been overwhelmed at the change in attitude of the vast majority of the objectors and moved at their support of his business.

Referencing the existing objections which related to traffic, the applicant asked committee to recognise the measures and investment he made to the  property to ensure there would be no traffic problems. The front garden had been landscaped to accommodate between two to three cars and with the start times varying it would be highly unlikely that any more vehicles than that would arrive at the same time.  

A condition had been included within the contract which required parents to agree that all vehicles park only on the driveway:  this would alleviate any need for vehicles to have to travel past the house and down to the end of the road, where the remaining objectors lived.  Furthermore failure to adhere to the condition would mean the client could no longer attend.

Concluding, the applicant referred committee to the 160 new homes being built in Kirton and suggested that there would be a very real need for future childcare.  He advised the committee that both his wife and daughter had completed degrees in Childcare and that he was quite prepared to put in place any requirement the committee may have to permit the business to proceed.

It was moved by Councillor Michael Cooper and seconded by Councillor Alison Austin that the application be granted in line with officer recommendation and subject to the conditions and reasons therein and subject to an additional condition for maintenance of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Outline application with some matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) reserved for the erection of up to 5no. residential dwellings.

Land North of Spalding Road  Sutterton  Boston  Lincolnshire  PE20 2ET

Mr and Mrs Pacey

Outline application with all matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and

scale)

except access reserved for the erection of 5 residential dwellings and

associated works

Land North of Spalding Road, Sutterton, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE20 2ET

Mr & Mrs Pacey

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and advised there were no updates to the report tabled.

Representation was received in objection to the application which included:

Confirming their residence as one of the bungalows aside the proposed entrance to the site which would be most affected by the application, the objector stated that if granted, the development would have a detrimental affect on residents in the area.

Referencing the track alongside their properties which would be used as the access road to the site, the objector voiced concern that the tractor which currently used the track to access the field caused vibrations to their properties:  the development could mean up to 15 cars exiting and entering the site and the objectors were extremely concerned at the impact so many vehicle movements would have on their homes.

Furthermore referencing the existing track the objector stated it could not be widened due to the proximity of the bungalows on either side:  it would mean one-way traffic and more importantly it would not allow for a pedestrian footpath.  Additionally the objector voiced concern at how, if granted, the construction vehicles which would be needed to supply the facilities and building materials to the site, would actually turn and enter the site and again what impact their weight bearing loads would have on their properties.

Committee were asked to recognise that if granted the development could have between 25-30 residents.  Whilst at outline stage the objectors were concerned about possible overlooking and a loss of amenity from increased noise levels both from the site itself and the volume of vehicles using the track.

Concluding, the objector referenced the busy main road across the front of the site and advised the committee that when exiting the site onto the road, the view to the left for exiting vehicles was restricted.

Committee were asked to refuse the application in line with the officers recommendation.

Representation was received in support of the application which included:

Committee were asked to realise that when the site had initially been partially developed it had been envisaged that the remainder of the site would be developed which was why the access road had been left in place

The access was proposed to be upgraded so both pedestrians and motorists would be able to use it and an acoustic fence 1.8m tall would be erected to run parallel along the road to mitigate noise.  Committee were reminded that under PD right the fence could be erected at anytime.  New drawings had identified how an upgrade would be achieved and the outline complied with highway policy and similar accesses were replicated in many comparable developments.

The supporter questioned the objection in respect of noise from the traffic generation from the five houses as the main highway  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Application under s.211 for works to trees in a conservation area to include:

T1 – Sycamore tree – fell

The Roccos  Low Road  Wyberton  Boston  PE21 7AP

Mrs Emma Turvey

Section 211 Notice (Works to trees in a Conservation Area)

Fell sycamore tree

The Roccos, Low Road, Wyberton, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 7AP

Mrs Emma Turvey

The Development Control Manager presented the report confirming that it was being tabled at the committee as the applicant was a member of his team.

It was moved by Councillor Michael Brookes and seconded by Councillor Michael Cooper that the application be granted in line with officer recommendation and subject to the conditions and reasons therein:

Vote:    In Favour.    10                Against.      1              Abstention.   0

RESOLVED:    That the application be granted in line with officer recommendation and subject to the condition as follows

1. That the Committee agrees that a Tree Preservation Order in order to retain this tree is not necessary.

It is recorded that Councillor Alison Austin rejoined the meeting at this part in the proceedings and participated in all remaining items on the agenda.

Report by the Development Control Manager.

Appeal Decision in respect of Planning Application B 15 0530 (land between Station Road and Wash Road Kirton)

and

Appeal Decision in respect of Planning Application B 16 0209 (Land adjacent to Piveltoft House  Monument Road Bicker)

The Development Control Manager presented the report which reported on two appeal decisions and related costs where applicable.

The first appeal was in relation to the Station Road and Wash Road application which had been refused by committee in May 2016 and not April 2016 as noted within the report.

Committee were advised that at the hearing the Inspectors decision came down to highways issues in that the highway authority had raised no objection to the site.  The Council had put forward its own highways assessment which the applicants had not done and the Inspector had favoured that.  However any transport ground for refusal was only applicable when the impact was so severe on an application.  As such, the application was granted on appeal and the applicants put in an application for costs. 

The costs application was not granted and members were reminded that by the Inspector having determined that the Council had acted unreasonably, it was fortunate that costs had not been granted.

The second appeal related to an application at Piveltoft House in Bicker which had been refused under delegated powers in July 2016.  The Inspector upheld the decision and the appeal had been dismissed.

A member sought confirmation on the Wash Road application in respect of adding a possible condition on the application now it had been granted and was advised that only the outline had been granted on the site and the applicant would need to apply for the future reserved matters.

Delegated Decision List 20 March 2017 to 21 April 2017

Committee noted the Delegated Decision List for the period 20 March 2017 to 21 April 2017.  A member questioned why Planning Application B 17 0066 had been refused. 

The Development Control Manager confirmed it had been refused as the site of the advertising was on a main artery road through the town and could provide both distract to drivers, and more dangerously it would set a precedent for similar advertising