Agenda and minutes

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

Also present: Mr Jon Sharpe, Principal Highways Officer.

There were apologies for absence from Councillors Alison Austin and Aaron Spencer.  Councillor Richard Austin was serving on the Committee as the substitute Member for Councillor Alison Austin. 

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20^th June 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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

It was noted that Councillors Michael Brookes and Paul Skinner were Members of Lincolnshire County Council and that Councillors David Brown, Sue Ransome, Michael Brookes, Colin Brotherton, Michael Cooper, Claire Rylott and Jonathan Noble, were Members of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan Committee.

B/17/0174

Members of the Committee had declared they had been lobbied about this application and had completed lobbying forms.

Councillor Yvonne Stevens declared that she knew Tony Clarke, one of the objectors, as an acquaintance, but had not discussed the application. 

Councillor Stephen Woodliffe declared a conflict of interest due to his close association with Boston Grammar School, a potential beneficiary under the Section 106 agreement, and would leave the room for the entire consideration of the application.

Councillor Colin Brotherton declared himself to be in a compromising situation and would leave the room for the entire consideration of the application.

Councillor Claire Rylott declared that she would step down from the Committee when it considered the application in order to speak as Ward Member after which she would leave the room for the entire consideration of the application. 

Councillor Richard Austin declared that he knew many people in the area, but had not discussed the application with them. 

Councillor Sue Ransome declared that, as a Kirton Parish Councillor, she had been present when the application had been discussed by the parish council, but she had not taken part or made any comment. 

Councillor Mike Brookes declared that, as the County Councillor for Kirton, he knew many people in the area and had been present at Kirton Parish Council when the application had been discussed, but he had not taken part or been persuaded in any way. 

B/17/0172

Councillor Jonathan Noble declared that Mr and Mrs Freemantle, two objectors, had asked him to call in the application, but he had retained an open mind in respect of this application. 

Councillor Paul Skinner declared that he lived at the top end of the road and knew the applicant and objectors as acquaintances, but had not been lobbied nor had he discussed the application, and he had retained an open mind on the application. 

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.

There were no public questions.

Outline application for the erection of up to 195 dwellings with all matters reserved (scale, layout, appearance and landscaping) except access reserved with public open space and drainage infrastructure

(revised application to B 16 0380)

Land north of Middlegate Road (west) Frampton Boston PE20 1BX

Larkfleet Limited T/A Allison Homes

Outline Planning Permission

Outline application for the erection of up to 195 dwellings with all matters (scale, layout, landscaping and appearance) except access reserved, with public open space and drainage infrastructure

Land north of Middlegate Road (West), Frampton, Boston

Larkfleet Ltd T/A Allison Homes

[Councillors Colin Brotherton and Stephen Woodliffe left the room for the entire consideration of this application.  Councillor Claire Rylott stepped down from the Committee to speak as Ward Member and left the room after having done so.]

A point of information was made by the Monitoring Officer:

To answer the question of whether the Committee Members could be seen as pre-determined because they had considered an application in the same location and on the same site, the Monitoring Officer confirmed that they were not; this was a fresh application and would receive a fresh appraisal from the Committee.  There had been material changes to the proposals and, providing Members could distance themselves from the previous application, they would consider the application with fresh minds and, therefore, there was no pre-determination. 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application and advised the Committee that further letters of objection had been received from local residents reiterating concerns detailed and addressed in the report.  A communication had also been received from Matt Warman MP supporting residents’ concerns regarding the character of the area and the impact and scale of the proposal and expressing hopes that the Committee would take a balanced view. 

It was stressed that the previous application, considered in January 2017, had been refused purely on the grounds of the impacts on landscape.  The proposals were outlined, including the key changes from the previous application, as set out in the report.  The Committee was reminded that this application was for outline planning permission only. 

Copies of paperwork submitted by the objector and Ward Member by the deadline had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting in accordance with the Council’s public speaking policy. 

A member of the public made representation on behalf of the residents’ community group in objection to the application, which, in summary, included:

The Planning Officers’ report had not been received until the previous night and a message had been received the previous week that the meeting was not going ahead.  The application was the same as the previous one and the grounds for refusing it were the same, including failure to satisfy the flood risk Sequential Test; the alternative site had been removed without consultation or approval from residents.  Residents’ concerns were being ignored and the decision to remove the Sequential Test reason for refusal of the previous application was at odds with them.  The letter to residents inviting them to comment on the request for the inclusion of the current application submission, revised masterplan and drawings to the Inspectorate hearing the appeal, rather than the scheme that was refused, was misleading.  Many unresolved issues remained.  Concerns included building on unstable ground; the effect of water run-off and foul water; inadequate sewerage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

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

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 2 no. dwellings with associated garages and access.

Castle Nau   West End Road   Wyberton   Boston   PE21 7LL

Mr Anthony Skinner

Full Planning Permission

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 2 no. dwellings with associated garages & access.           

Castle Nau, West End Road, Wyberton, Boston, PE21 7LL

Mr Anthony Skinner

[Councillors Colin Brotherton, Claire Rylott and Stephen Woodliffe returned to the room at this point.]

The Committee was advised that this application had been withdrawn from this meeting’s agenda by the applicant.

Retrospective planning application for continuation of use for the assemby and manufacture of rifles and ancillary precision engineering and retention of rifle testing range (Sui Generis)       

Bank House, Scalp Road, Fishtoft, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 0SH

Mr Mik Maksimovic

Full Planning Permission

Retrospective planning application for continuation of use for the assemby and manufacture of rifles and ancillary precision engineering and retention of rifle testing range (Sui Generis)

Bank House, Scalp Road, Fishtoft, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 0SH

Mr Mik Maksimovic

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application and advised the Committee that an additional letter had been received from the neighbours who were objecting, reiterating previous issues, but also including a map indicating their properties in relation to the site and commenting on the noise assessment.  The points raised had been taken into account, but did not change the Planning Officers’ recommendation. 

Copies of paperwork submitted by the objectors by the deadline had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting in accordance with the Council’s public speaking policy. 

Two members of the public made representation in objection to the application, which, in summary, included:

The first objector explained that they were not against the manufacturing, but objected to the intermittent and excessive noise from the firing range, which adversely affected their enjoyment of their home and garden.  The firing tunnel was not underground; it was 2m above ground and covered by less than 30cm of soil.  The roofs, doors and firing bay were not covered at all.  The bullet catcher building and the tunnel were not soundproofed.  Police safety advice was that a high specification was needed to absorb large calibre, high velocity shots.  The location was a quiet nature reserve separated from a pubic footpath by only a 1m high fence within 50 metres of two residential properties in open countryside.  The bullet catcher building was located within 20 metres of their garden.  The site had been derelict for over 20 years.  Anglian Water had never used the barns for storage and it had not been used commercially.  It was not known who the noise assessment company was; when and where measurements at their property were carried out; the amount of gunpowder used per cartridge, which affected the noise; and an assessment of 50 calibre firing.  The stated number of 10 shots per week was contrary to their experience and to that detailed in day rates for the range that had appeared on the internet.  The analogy of bird-scarers was not appropriate as they were not permanent and nor were they sited this close to residential property. 

The second objector clarified the location of his house on the map in relation to the application site and echoed statements made by the first speaker.  The site had never been used by Anglian Water or the previous occupier as a commercial site so the applicant should have known planning permission was needed.  The site had been derelict for many years and had become an eyesore, so they were pleased that it was being re-used and had been landscaped etc.  However, the firing tunnel was not underground; it was just laid on the ground and it would help if more soil was used to cover it.  The shooting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

The Delegated Decision List for the period 29 May 2017 to 23 June 2017

The Committee noted the list.