Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies for absence were tabled from Councillor Aaron Spencer with Councillor Michael Brookes substituting.  Apologies were also tabled from Councillors Anton Dani and Yvonne Stevens with no substitute members.

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

With the permission of the committee the Chairman signed the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 16 May 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 collective standing declaration of interest is noted in respect of Councillors David Brown, Sue Ransome, Alison Austin, Michael Brookes, Colin Brotherton, Michael Cooper, Claire Rylott and Jonathan Noble in respect of their membership of the SELLP which is referenced within the meeting.

Prior to receiving notice by members of their declarations the Clerk confirmed that Lobbying Forms had been signed and lodged with the Council by all members of the committee, with the exception of Councillor Michael Brookes, in respect of planning application B 16 0141.

Further declarations noted:

Councillor Alison Austin declared that Parish Councillor Helen Staples speaking on planning application B 16 0141 was a good friend of theirs but that no discussion had taken place in respect of the planning application. 

Councillor Alison Austin further declared that she was extremely well acquainted with Mr Borritt who was speaking on planning application B 16 0463 but that no discussions had taken place in respect of the application.

Councillor Paul Skinner declared in respect of planning application B 16 0141 that when he was in attendance at Fishtoft Parish Council in his role as a Parish Councillor, he had exited the room when the planning application had been tabled and he had taken no part in any of the discussions.   Councillor Skinner further declared that whilst he had had nothing to do with Planning Application B 16 0436, he had tired to assist residents previously with a horticultural problem in the area.

Councillor Skinners final declaration in respect of Planning Application B 16 0456 noted that he had known the applicants but had not seen them for a number of years.

Councillor Stephen Woodliffe declared in respect of Planning Application B 16 0141 that Parish Councillor Helen Staples was known to him and he further declared in respect of Planning Application B 16 0436 that Mr Borritt was also known to him as a former colleague at Boston Grammar School.  Councillor Woodliffe stated that he had not taken part in any discussions with either Mrs Staples or Mr Borritt on their respective applications.

Councillor Barrie Pierpoint declared in respect of Planning Application B 16 0141 that he knew Parish Councillor Helen Staples purely socially through Council events. 

A point of information was then made by the Monitoring Officer:

Stating she was mindful of the large number of public in attendance and that perhaps not all of those attending were clear on why the members were declaring they knew people who were speaking at the meeting. The Monitoring Officer advised that when a Councillor stated they knew somebody in attendance who was registered to speak, if they then remained at the committee table, they did so having determined that their knowledge of that person or association, was not sufficient enough to cloud their judgement when taking part or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

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.

Construction of 66no. dwellings including 11 affordable dwellings, new vehicular access and estate road plus associated garages and infrastructure.

Land off Sibsey Road / Wainfleet Road  Boston

Mrs Alison Lea  Larkfleet Homes

Full Planning Permission

Construction of 66 dwellings including 11 affordable dwellings, new vehicular access and estate road plus associated garages and infrastructure

Land off Sibsey Road/Wainfleet Road, Boston, Lincolnshire

Mrs Alison Lea, Larkfleet Homes

Prior the presentation of the application the Monitoring Officer provided a point of clarification following queries by some committee members in respect of the application and their having determined the previous application on the site.  Committee were advised that the application for consideration was a brand new application and as such, all members were permitted to determine the application provided they were confident they would do so with an open mind.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and advised members of updates to the report tabled within the agenda.

The first update advised that an additional letter of objection had been received from no. 27 Sibsey Road which reiterated the concerns already noted in respect of highway safety and traffic concerns. 

The second update referred members to Condition 8 on Page 43 of the report.  Members were advised that the condition would be amended to include road and play equipment alongside the landscaping.

Representation was received in objection to the application which included:

Concern was noted at the impact the development would have on existing neighbours; the loss of amenity to neighbouring houses and concern that the community of the development site would not integrate with the existing community around the site. The size of the development was over development of the site; would be out of character to the established area and was against the wishes of local residents:  it was also agricultural land and should be left as that.

Further concerns raised included problems of highway safety at the entrance of the site; increased traffic congestion and concern at the ghost island and also that the pavement width was only 3m wide and according to Regulations should be a minimum of 3.4m wide.

Referencing neighbouring Burton Hall the objector stated that the development would result in a loss of a significant heritage building which had already built a hedge around it to protect it from the development, which has sadly resulted in the loss of sight of the historic building from Sibsey Road.

Concluding the objector noted flooding concerns which would result from an estate type development which would impact onto the neighbouring houses which could also then flood.

Representation was received by the applicant which included:

Committee were advised that Larkfleet Homes was a proven local housing provider which had won numerous awards in the industry and were part of the Larkfleet Group.

Referring to the original application on the site for 76 homes which despite the extensive discussions held with all parties, had been refused on a single issue of highways objections, the applicant acknowledged that due to such an objection the committee had no option but to refuse it. 

Briefly referencing the appeal decision the applicant clarified the Inspector’s criticism of non-contributions for education or health – stating that no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Outline planning application for the demolition of the former scrap yard buildings and disused farm buildings and the erection of up to 180 dwellings, ancillary public open space, landscaping, drainage and access (all matters reserved)

Land east of Lindis Road (inc. former Shooters Yard)  Fishtoft  Boston

Andrew Burling

Outline Planning Permission

Outline planning application with all matters (scale, layout, access, landscaping and appearance) reserved for the demolition of the former scrap yard buildings and disused farm buildings and the erection of up to 180 dwellings, ancillary public open space/play area and swales

Land east of Lindis Road (inc former Shooters Yard), Fishtoft, Boston

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and advised member of one update to the report tabled in that Condition 9 would be amended to read 0800 hours and not 0830 as within the condition.

Representation was received in objection to the application which included:

Committee were asked to undertake a site visit in order to see the residents concerns and opinion that the development would impact on the area.

Whilst the initial development had been for 224 dwellings and now reduced to 180,  of which 100 would be build within the first five years, the size of the development would still possibly create an additional 200 vehicles movements a day and be subject to over 300 wheelie bins.

Further concerns included the fear of overlooking by 3 storey properties onto existing neighbouring houses.  Referring to foundation design the committee were advised that a continuous thumping during construction could result in cases of reported cracking in homes.  The approach onto the site from Lindis Road was not suitable for lorries and could create dangers for pedestrians using Lindis Road. Concern was stressed at the impact on the junction of Lindis Road, Eastwood Road, Woodville Road and Freiston Road which was already over laden at peak times and in particular when turning right onto Freiston Road which was nearly a blind turn.  

The comment that pedestrians could use a Zebra Crossing on Freiston Road was queried as the objector advised there was no pedestrian crossing on Freiston Road.  Committee were asked to agree that all the supermarkets were on the other side of town; most of the doctors’ surgeries were on the other side and as such walking and cycling to amenities would not happen. Concluding committee were advised that the Wildlife assessment was out of date and more importantly the site did flood.

Representation was received on behalf of the applicant which included:

Advising that Cyden were a Lincolnshire based company who were recognised for their aware winning quality and had successful developments across the County.  They had a track record for working with the community and pre application engagement had been well publicised with a drop in session held well in advance for the application being considered. 

Following the drop in session the applicant had amended the initial plans to address the issues which had arisen and throughout the whole application process an open and honest dialogue had been maintained with the officers.

Committee were reminded that there were no statutory objections to the application, which underlined the robust in-depth professional assessments across all areas that the applicant had produced.

Furthermore members were reminded that a portion of the site still had an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Outline application for residential development (up to 42 dwellings) with all matters reserved for later consideration.

Land to the rear of nos. 1a – 15 Watery Lane  Butterwick  Boston  PE22 0HS

Mr and Mrs R F and J Warth

Outline Planning Permission

Outline application for residential development (up to 42 dwellings) with

all matters reserved for later consideration

Land to the rear of nos. 1a - 15 Watery Lane, Butterwick, Boston,

Lincolnshire, PE22 0HS

Mr & Mrs R F & J Warth

The Development Control Manager presented the report confirming only one update to the report tabled in that extra representation had been received from the agent which was too late to be circulated to committee.  It referenced the recent Supreme Court Judgement pointing out that Policies including CO1 although not for the ‘supply of housing’ were up to date.  Further representation noted the 2011 HM Gov. Housing Strategy which stated for every new home, 2 new jobs were created and also reference was made to para.14 of the NPPF and the ‘tilted balance’ needed in deliberation in that there was no current five year supply and as such, committee needed to still work on the presumption in favour of development.

Representation was received by the agent which included:

Committee were asked to recognise the agents’ expression of appreciation of the case officer for the application.  Briefly referencing the Supreme Court decision the agent asked that whilst he acknowledged that the application did impact on CO1, the site did abut the existing settlement of Butterwick and that although the local plan carried no statutory weight the site was identified in the SHLAA.

Members were asked to recognise that there had been no third party representation and that the 24% affordable housing allocation was significantly higher than the minimum statutory requirement.

Noting the mix of housing in the indicative layout, members were advised that the final mix was for determination at reserved matters stage and the layout was solely to confirm that the site could accommodate 42 dwellings.

Referencing the early objections by the Environment Agency in respect of flood risk members were advised it had arisen due to a belief that there would be bungalows on the site:  the agent confirmed he felt that the problem could be addressed by using either dormer bungalows or bungalows with refuges in the attics.

Drawing committees’ attention to point 7.5 of the report, the agent noted the unusual comment by the officer that in their opinion the developments would actually improve the character and visual impact of the area and bearing that in mind, committee needed to pay weight to the comment against CO1.  

Furthermore the agent referenced 7.8 of the report and confirmed that the development was capable of delivering significant improvements to highway safety both outside the site and at the junction as the land was in the control of the applicant.

It was moved by Councillor Michael Cooper and seconded by Councillor Colin Brotherton that subject to the signings of the s106 Planning Obligation, the application be granted in line with officer recommendation, subject to the conditions and reasons therein and that all Reserved Matters be returned to committee for final determination.

Vote:      In Favour   11.            Against:   0          Abstention:   0

RESOLVED:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

A report by the Development Control Manager

Request to vary the terms of planning obligations to accompany permissions for housing at the Magnadata and Norprint sites in Boston

The Development Control Manager presented the report confirming that the applicants had tabled a request to vary the terms of the planning obligations which had been agreed when committee had delegated powers to him to approve, subject to the planning obligations.

Since the delegation the developers on both sites had incurred significantly more costs than had been expected:  both sites had subsequently gone into administration and being subject to still having to pay rates on the sites, the applicants had taken the decision to demolish both sites.  As the works to demolish both sites had progressed, the levels of asbestos on both sites and in particular the Norfolk Street site, had exceeded the applicants’ expectations.

The agreed level of educational contributions across both sites had been £921k on the Magnadata Site and £169k on the Norprint site:  the additional costs which had not been anticipated during the demolition had amounted to £625k to date and the applicants had stated that the costs now threatened the viability of the scheme.

Members were advised that they needed to agree any variation:  the applicants had suggested removal of all educational contributions which would maintain the 15.8% affordable housing allocation:  if members were not agreeable then any continuation could affect the affordable housing allocation or possible non continuation of the development.

The Development Control Manager provided a selection of options across both sites and asked committee for a decision in order to respond to the request for the variation.

A considerable amount of member discussion took place considering the options.  Members all voiced strong concern at the lack of preparation by the applicants when scheduling their plan of works:  the lack of identification of the obvious high levels of contamination that would be on the sites due to their former use, and more importantly, the level of demolition costs that would be required to clear them both.    Two key areas of agreement were identified with members agreeing that they did not want to see the sites abandoned and not built and that the priority of maintaining the agreed affordable housing provision outweighed the educational contributions.

It was moved by Councillor Paul Skinner and seconded by Councillor

That the Committee agree:

§  To keep all the affordable housing at present levels.

• That the terms of the s106 obligation are based upon a full open book exercise that has been independently verified to enable officers to negotiate the level of education contributions with the full knowledge of extra costs

• The standard condition on the outline approval for submission of reserved matters is amended to one year

§  That all reserved matters be determined through committee.

The vote was unanimous in favour of the motion.

A Report by the Development Control Manager in respect of:

Willow Lodge Park   Chaple Hill Road   Chaple Hill   Boston.

Committee noted the Appeal Decision Report which was presented by the Development Control Manager

A report by the Development Control Manager

Committee noted the delegated decision list.