Agenda and minutes

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

There were apologies for absence from Councillors Anton Dani and Yvonne Stevens.  Councillor Colin Brotherton was substituting for Councillor Stevens. 

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12^th September 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman welcomed Councillors Dani and Edwards onto the Committee and also welcomed the new Interim Development Control Manager. 

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

The following standing declarations were confirmed:

Councillors Alison Austin and Paul Skinner – Members of Lincolnshire County Council.

Councillors David Brown, Colin Brotherton, Michael Cooper, Sue Ransome and Claire Rylott – Members of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee as Borough Councillors.

Councillor Alison Austin – Member of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee as a County Councillor. 

Councillors Colin Brotherton, Michael Cooper, Claire Rylott and Paul Skinner – Council representatives on the Internal Drainage Boards. 

B/17/0147

The Monitoring Officer informed the meeting that she had written to Members asking them to reflect on the extent of their relationship with the applicant if they were members of the same political group.  Group membership was not the issue; it was the extent of any relationship and social interaction.  The onus was on Members to decide whether the extent was such that, on balance, a member of the public would have a perception of bias or whether the applicant was not known to them more than many others with whom they came into contact.

Councillor Michael Cooper declared that he had a close relationship with the applicant and his family and would leave the room for consideration of the application.

Councillor Colin Brotherton declared that he knew the applicant very well, but had limited social interaction with him, and knew his family well.  Following reiteration of the Monitoring Officer’s advice, Councillor Brotherton decided to leave the room for consideration of the application.   

The Chairman and Councillors Paul Skinner and Stephen Raven declared that they knew the applicant, but had limited social interaction with him and had an open mind with respect to the application. 

Erection of a roadside service area including a truck stop with associated parking, petrol filling station and sales kiosk, coffee shop and freestanding McDonalds drive-thru restaurant.

Land off Station Road at the A16/A17 Sutterton Roundabout    Boston    Lincolnshire PE20 2LF

Lindum Group Ltd

Erection of a roadside service area including a truck stop with associated parking, petrol filling station and sales kiosk, coffee shop and freestanding McDonalds drive-thru restaurant

Land off Station Road at the A16/A17 Sutterton Roundabout, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE20 2LF

Lindum Group Ltd

The Planning Officer presented the report and advised the meeting that further information had been received following the publication of the agenda from Natural England, confirmed that they had reviewed the information from the ecological survey and had no objections to the application.

The Committee received representation from members of the public who had registered to speak and the main points they raised follow below in summary.

A planner acting on behalf of Malthurst Petroleum Limited, owner of the BP petrol station located 100 metres from the site, made the following objections:

·         The site was an undeveloped flat field designated within the countryside B2 Frampton/Fosdyke Settled Fen Landscape Character Area.  B2 stated that new development should be centred around existing development to prevent loss of rural landscape; the application site was outside the settlement boundary surrounded by open agricultural land to the south and west. 

·         The applicant had not made a case for the departure from the Local Plan.  Policy CO1 sought to protect the countryside from development unless supported by other Local Plan policies.  Planning Officers had stated that Policy ED10 related purely to the Truck Stop and that the McDonald’s restaurant and PFS were subject to a retail sequential test, but this meant proposals for a major retail centre satisfying the sequential test would satisfy Policy CO1, which was clearly contrary to Policy CO1. 

·         The site was the best versatile agricultural land.

·         Landholdings around the Sutterton roundabout contained businesses relating to the agricultural character of the area. 

·         The proposal would have a considerable impact on the character of area due to its size and on the views of the countryside due to its open and flat character.

·         The site was in Flood Zone 3 and inappropriate in flood risk terms.

·         There was no evidence of need for the proposals; similar, easily accessible services were located at the roundabout already, there was no shortfall in provision, and if one developed, in planning terms, it would be more appropriate to extend existing facilities.

The applicant’s representative addressed the meeting and, in summary, asserted that:

·         The report demonstrated that the application sat within the framework of planning policy, including Policy ED10, which supported the truck stop element of the proposals. 

·         It had been proved that there were no sequentially preferable sites for the other elements both in terms of the flood risk and the retail tests. 

·         The site was located on a busy, prominent roundabout serving two of the busiest roads in Lincolnshire with development surrounding the site; therefore, the proposals were consistent with the built development.

·         The proposals were of a high-quality design with significant levels of landscaping to ensure the visual impact of the scheme was softened as much as possible. 

·         The applicant had worked with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

Outline planning permission with consideration given to access and layout (matters relating to appearance, landscaping and scale reserved for later consideration) for 45 dwellings (including 12 affordable units) and associated works.

Land off Broadgate  Wrangle  Lincolnshire PE22 9BP

T Ashton and Sons

Outline Planning permission with consideration given to access and layout (matters  relating to appearance, landscaping and scale reserved for later consideration) for 45 dwellings (including 12 affordable units) and associated works

Land off Broadgate, Wrangle, PE22 9BP

T Ashton & Sons

[Councillors Colin Brotherton and Michael Cooper left the room for the entire duration of the consideration of this application.]

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and advised the meeting that, earlier that day, NHS England had agreed a financial requirement for the applicant equating to £19,980.

The Committee received representation from the applicant, who had registered to speak at the meeting.

A member of the family making the application spoke in support of the proposal, describing it as of high quality and low density.  They had lived close to the site for years and hoped the proposal would benefit Wrangle in terms of future growth without detracting from its rural nature. 

The family believed they had largely addressed the concerns of neighbours and the parish council due to the low number of representations for a proposal of this size. 

The parish council's main concern was density, yet this proposal would result in a density of 9.6 houses per hectare, almost half the density of a site supported by the parish council in the Local Plan’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and of similar density to another.  The proposed density was in keeping with the rural village and the planning officer considered that it reduced any resulting negative impact on the character and appearance of the area.

Flood risk concerns had been addressed as the Environment Agency was satisfied by the flood risk assessment, and the family had happily agreed to the condition regarding archaeological work. 

The family had spoken to the parish council regarding Anglian Water and the sewage capacity of the local system.  The family knew of the issues in Elizabeth Avenue, but these related to an old system.  The proposed scheme would be attached to the new system, which had no issues, and Anglian Water had raised none.

A Member asked whether a management plan was proposed, as the amenity space was sizeable and should not fall to the parish council to undertake.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer explained that there would be hard and soft landscaping, planting and retention of trees, but if a plan could be attached as a condition in Reserved Matters if the Committee so wished.

It was proposed by Councillor Jonathan Noble and seconded by Councillor Claire Rylott that authority be delegated to the Interim Development Control Manager in line with the Senior Planning Officer’s recommendations, including the planning obligation for a contribution to NHS England, with an additional condition for a landscaping management plan to be added to Reserved Matters.

Vote: 9 for, 1 against

RESOLVED That authority be delegated to the Interim Development Control Manager to grant Outline Planning Permission subject to the satisfactory completion of Section 106 planning obligations/unilateral undertakings with the Council relating to the provision of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

Outline application for proposed residential development of up to 41 market and affordable dwellings (with access to be considered).

Woods Nurseries Site   Woods Nurseries   High Street   Swineshead   Boston

Woods Nurseries.

Outline application for proposed residential development of up to 41 market and affordable dwellings (with access to be considered)      

Woods Nurseries Site, Woods Nurseries, High Street, Swineshead, Boston

Woods Nurseries

The Planning Officer presented the report and advised the meeting of the following information received since the publication of the agenda:

·         An objector who had been working away had requested that the application be deferred to allow him time to put representations together although notification of neighbours and objectors had been undertaken in accordance with the Council’s usual policies and the objector’s representations were set out in the report.

·         The Highway Authority, following a meeting with Planning Officers, no longer had any objections to the application subject to the addition of three standard conditions relating to:

o   Provision and quality of roads and access of footways to each dwelling to be completed within three months of the commencement of the development of the penultimate dwelling;

o   The first sixty metres of the estate road from its junction to the public highway to be built out early in the construction; and

o   The surface water drainage to be based on sustainable drainage principles.

·         The Environment Agency did not require any conditions.

The Planning Officer commended the addition of the conditions requested by the Highway Authority.

It was noted that there were two errors in the report: the map at the start of the report indicated a road stating it was the A16, but it was actually the A17 and paragraph 7.12 should have referred to Swineshead, not Butterwick.

The Committee discussed the objector’s request that the application be deferred.  The Monitoring Officer pointed out that the objector had submitted representations, which were summarised in the report, and, therefore, on balance, he had not been prejudiced.  The Planning Officer explained that the objector was asserting he had not had sufficient time to look at the report and check appeal decisions; however, the usual processes had been followed with respect to the publication of the agenda and deferral was not recommended.  The Committee Members agreed that they were happy to proceed with their consideration of the application.

The Committee received representation from the applicant’s planning consultant, who had registered to speak at the meeting.

In summary, the applicant’s planning consultant (Rollinson Planning Consultancy) described the proposal as well considered.  Proper procedures had been followed with formal pre-application discussions from the outset, meeting with Planning and Highway Authority Officers, and working with officers after submission.

They had provided a flood risk and drainage assessment, transport study, contamination report, ecology study and a heritage assessment in relation to the scheduled ancient monument. 

Although a sizable scheme, there had been no objections from the parish council and only three representations, showing that it was sensible and modest.  The site was outside the development limit in the current adopted plan, but it was not a greenfield site, was not in open countryside, and was occupied by large buildings and a significant area of hardstanding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

A report by the Interim Development Control Manager.

Appeal Decision Notice for 76 Spilsby Road  Boston  Lincolnshire.

The Interim Development Control Officer advised the Committee that two appeal decisions had been received in the last week, both of which had been dismissed and would be reported to the next Committee.

It was noted that Inspectors were still not giving weight to the emerging Local Plan even in the post examination stage; only when a plan was adopted would its policies be given full weight.

The Planning Officer presented a report, which detailed the result of a listed building appeal for retrospective works. 

The Inspector had given different weight to the character of the building and the conservation area and had come to the conclusion that the application did not harm the character and setting of the listed building and, in fact, enhanced the area.

The Inspector had not addressed the impact on the neighbouring dwellings.  However, the applicant did not have planning permission and, to regularise the situation, had been asked to submit an application, part of which would cover the issues of the impact on neighbouring dwellings.   

Delegated Decision List 28 August 2017 – 22 September 2017

Members referred to various applications about which the Planning Officers would provide further information as follows:

·         B/16/0372/CD2 – the reason for discharging the condition to allow a reduction in the provision of affordable housing.

·         B/16/0311 – the reason for the removal of the condition relating to the provision of affordable housing.

·         B/16/0311/CD1 – the meaning of ‘decision quashed’.

·         B/17/0300 – whether demolition of the dwelling to be replaced by a new dwelling amounted to infringement of the conditions of the permission.

Arrangements would be made for Members to undertake training on Section 106 planning obligations.

[Cllrs Brotherton and Rylott left the meeting at 4.35 pm]