Agenda and minutes

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

No apologies for absence were tabled however the Chairman confirmed he had been contacted by Councillor Anton Dani who advised he had been delayed but would be joining the meeting during the morning session.

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 December 5 2017.

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

The clerk confirmed that standing declarations of interest would be recorded for Councillors Alison Austin and Paul Skinner as members of Lincolnshire County Council; in respect of all Councillors David Brown, Michael Cooper, Sue Ransome and Claire Rylott as members of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan and in respect of Councillors Michael Cooper and Claire Rylott as representatives of Internal Drainage Boards.

A collective declaration of interest is recorded for Councillors Brown, Cooper, Noble, Rylott, Skinner, Stevens and Woodliffe in respect of Planning Application B 17 0413 in that Mr Dudley Bryant, registered to speak in objection to this application, is known to the said members in his role as a member of the conservative association.   All said members stated that theywould not be inappropriately influenced and would consider the representation made without pre determination or bias.

A final collective declaration of interest is recorded in respect of planning application B 17 0400:  all members recorded that the applicant was known to them as a fellow Councillor and Councillor Claire Rylott and Councillor Michael Cooper both confirmed they would absent from the meeting at that point in the proceedings.

Further declarations of interest noted:

Councillor Yvonne Stevens declared that whilst she had been lobbied by Mr Savoury in respect of planning application B 17 0413 she had not responded and had a clear mind to make any decision.

Councillor Barrie Pierpoint declared that the registered speaker in the category of applicant for planning application B 17 0441 was known to him as his medical practitioner but the relationship was purely one of Doctor / Patient.

Councillor Alison Austin declared that the objector speaking on planning application B 17 0413 was known to her but only as an acquaintance of her husband Councillor Richard Austin.

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 noted that at this part in the proceedings Councillor Anton Dani had not arrived and it is recorded he took no part in the first two applications considered within the morning session.

Residential Development of up to 9 dwellings

Land off Milkinghill Lane   Bicker   Lincolnshire

Mr Alan Chapman

This item had been withdrawn by the agent ahead of the meeting.

Outline planning permission for residential development (up to 5 dwellings) with all matters reserved.

Land off Old Main Road   Fosdyke   Boston   PE20 2BU

Messrs Alan and Brian Naylor

Outline planning permission for residential development with all matters reserved 

Land off Old Main Road, Fosdyke, Boston, PE20 2BU

Messrs Alan and Brian Naylor

The senior planning officer presented the report to committee and confirmed there were no updates to the report tabled but did confirm he was still awaiting a consultation response from the Environment Agency.

Representation was received by the agent Ms. Parkinson which included:

Asking the committee to acknowledge a few points on behalf of the applicant, the agent confirmed that the applicant recognised the location site was adjacent to the current boundary of Fosdyke in the Local Plan 1999 and also adjacent to the proposed South East Lincolnshire Local Plan boundary for the village.  The proposal for the five dwellings included a frontage footpath as part of the indicative plan, which would link the site immediately to the adjacent footpath leading on through to the village.  In terms of sustainability, whilst it was appreciated that Fosdyke was a smaller rural settlement, there were some village amenities with both a large village hall and a large village playing field which also served other local villages because of its size and quality.  The village had a major bus operator Cropleys Coaches based in the village which fortunately provided onward secondary transport to Sutterton, Kirton, Boston and Spalding from a sustainability and transport connection point of view.   Committee were also asked to recognise that the planning officer had noted in his conclusion that he considered the site large enough to accommodate the well designed scheme, without harm to the local residential amenity.   The site completed the remainder of the frontage of the field alongside the four houses already built on the frontage.  The large field at the rear which was farmed in conjunction with the fields north of the site would continue to be farmed without any disruption.  Finally committee were advised that foul sewerage had been introduced into the village which was sited immediately opposite the frontage of the site allowing it to easily link to the foul drainage system in the village.   The applicant had the full support of the Parish Council who had unanimously welcomed the suggestion of development within the village where limited infill opportunities for development existed.

Representation was received by Fosdyke Parish Councillor Glenn which included:

Fosdyke received few applications as a minor village but a small development of five properties infill in a gap between a re-built former farmhouse and an existing house built 25 years ago, had the full support of the Parish Council.   Whilst it accepted it would be an extension of the village envelope, the development was actually infill between existing houses and it had to be stressed that there was no possible continuation of any further ribbon development as a result, because it would encroach onto the A17.  The development could be linked into the main village sewage scheme. 

The Parish Council did recognise that Fosdyke would not be considered by the local planning authority for any major  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

Outline application for the erection of up to 5.no dwellings including access, layout and scale, with appearance and landscaping reserved for later approval.

Land adjacent to Roseway  Fishtoft Road  Fishtoft  Boston  PE21 0QR

Mr T Marshall   c/o  R H Marshall

Outline application for the erection of up to 5 no. dwellings including access, layout and scale, with appearance and landscaping reserved for later approval

Land adjacent to Roseway, Fishtoft Road, Fishtoft, Boston, PE21 0QR

Mr T Marshall c/o R H Marshall

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and noted updates to the report tabled.  

The first updated advised that 2 additonal letters of concern had been received from Roseway Fishtoft Road and Braythorpe Fishtoft Road, each a residency on either side of the proposed access.  Concerns noted included the impact on amentity, privacy and character of the area; impact on traffic and road safety given the number of accidents along the road and car parking and access, visual impact, noise and disturbances and impact on trees and concerns on further future development of the site.

The second application confirmed that Lincolnshire County Council Highways had responded and confirmed they had no objection to the application subject to the 3 conditions.

The Chairman invited Mr Simon Rowberry, the Interim Development Manager to offer a point of clarifcation at this point in the proceesings in respect of the applicaiton under consideraton.

Mr Rowberry referenced the comment that the Senior Planning Officer had made during his representation that the decision that the committee made on the last application, was clearly material to the one it would make on this application.  Committee were asked to recognise that the last application considered was infact an infil site: the current application was clearly different.   Part of the reason for officers recommending refusal was they viewed the application and the site as a projection in to the open countryside.  Concluding, that that whilst members were clearly able to take the view that they did with the infil develoment, The Interim Development Manager stressed that members needed to take serious consideration of the site characteristics in its determination.

No representation was received in respect of the application.

It was moved by Councillor Michael Cooper and seconded by ouncillor Jonathan Noble that the application be refused in line with officer recommendation and subject to the conditions and reasons therein.

Following member debate the Interim Development Manager addressed members and referred them to the reasons for refusal and stated that whilst members needed to treat each application on its own merit, moving forward committee needed to be consistent in its decision making in respect of sustainability.  As such, should the committee be minded to refuse the application, then he would suggest that they only do so on reason 2.  Should an appeal follow such a refusal, he stated that he felt that reasons 1 and 3 may not be sustained.  Committee were reminded that it only needed one good reason for refusal to defend an appeal.

An amendment was then moved by Councillor Alison Austin and seconded by Councillor Sue Ransome that in line with the advice provided by the Interim Development Control Manager the application be refused as per officer recommendation but for the 2^nd reason identified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

Erection of two storey side and rear extension and two storey front extension.

79 Pilleys Lane   Boston   Lincolnshire   PE21 9RA

Mrs Ayesha Virk

Erection of two storey side and rear extension and two storey front extension

79 Pilley’s Lane Boston, Lincolnshire  PE21 9RA

Mrs Ayesha Virk

The Interim Development Control Manager presented the report to the committee confirming there were no updates to the report tabled.

Joint representation was received in objection to the application by Mr Howarth and Mr Godden which included:

Committee were asked to recognise the significant size in increase of the proposed extension and the impact it would have on both objectors’ properties and their quality of life. Stating that the enormous brick wall would be 8m x 8m, they questioned the officer comment that it would not substantially harm their amenity.  The wall would be the length of three double decker buses and the height of two.  Referencing sunlight and sunshine as being essential elements to a person’s well being and health, committee were advised that from simple compass readings, one of the objectors stated he would lose 25% of light to both the rear and side of his property.  Further concerns from both objectors stated that no liaison had taken place with either of them from the planning officer: no site visit had taken place at either of their properties to consider the impact of the extension and both felt that the report was dismissive of their real concerns of overshadowing / overlooking and the loss of quality of life the development would have on each of their families.  Maps had failed to show the location of hallway windows on one property which were the only means of natural light on that side of their property, and also missing from the maps were trees which would also be affected.  Reference was made to a large shed which the objector stated was the size of a bungalow and already existed on the applicant’s land, which could be used instead for the extension.

Committee were asked to either refuse the application, or if not, then to seek a deferral to allow an official committee site visit to take place to enable members to see the many concerns of the objectors from their perspective.

Representation was received by the applicant Dr. Virk in respect of the which included:

Advising he did not have too much to say, the applicant said he hoped the extension would improve his house and the neighbourhood and it would be an eco friendly / nice living space for his family.  He recognised the substantial increase in size and accepted the feelings of the objectors.  Noting the reference to the trees he stated that he did not think his neighbours trees would be affected.  Concluding he said he would like to get it approved and said it was sad and he was sorry for Mr and Mrs Howarth with who he had always had a good relationship

It was moved by Councillor Barrie Pierpoint and seconded by Councillor Yvonne Stevens that the application be granted in line with Officer recommendation.

An amendment was subsequently moved by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

Conversion of existing bungalow into two storey dwelling including first floor extension to side and single storey extension to rear.

2 Somersby Green   Boston   Lincolnshire   PE21 9PH

Mr and Mrs Basham

Two storey rear extension and remove existing  bungalow roof, lift height of roof and insert 7 no.  Roof lights and a first floor window.

2 Somersby Green, Boston, Lincolnshire  PE21 9PH

Mr & Mrs Basham

As a point of order it was confirmed that this application was in the Ward of Trinity and within BTAC and not as the report noted, within Fishtoft Ward and Fishtoft Parish.

The report was presented by the Interim Development Manager who confirmed there were no updates to the report tabled. 

As a point of clarification members were referred to para. 7.10 / 7.12 and reminded that although some of the objections had been in respect of the roof lighting and the style and colour of windows and doors, the applicant was fully entitled under permitted development rights, to carry out those replacements without formal commmittee permission. There was no Article 4 Direction in place on or around the application site area, nor was the site within the conservation area. 

Representation was received in objection to the application which included:

Confirming his submission for consideration of objections had been cirulated to members ahead of the meeting, the objector advised he would emphasise the main issues of concern.  Committee were advised that the original proposal to convert a 3 bedroomed bungalow in to a 4 bedroom house with a study, had two bathrooms and en suite shower room, white framed georgian style windows replaced with grey UPV aluminium framed units,  a plain glass door and the external walls rendered grey, all of which had totally ignored the well established design concept of Somersby Green.  It had been unacceptable and described by pretty much everyone as ‘sticking out like a sore thumb’.

The overall appearance and environment of Somersby Green was very precious.  Owners had taken great care to nurture and maintain every aspect of the original design features of the buildings since their construction.  As such, residents felt it important that they did everything possible to maintain all those valued features for the future.  Para 2.1 in the report stated Somersby Green was one of the finest examples of housing in the Borough  and all residents wished to continue to safeguard all aspects of that environemnt. All had indiciated their support for the objection which was evidenced by the attendance of the many residents in support of objection seated in the public gallery.  

Congratulations were offered to Mr Thomsett for his effort to  negotiate an improved proposal.  However, the building would still be of two storey wedged in between two bungalows. 

Members were asked to recognise that the proposed two storey rear extension would significantly impact on the side and rear of bungalows either side. The roof line would also be inconsistent.   Objectors maintained that Policy G1 allowed refusal because the design concept of Somersby Green would be substantially harmed by changing a single storey into a two storey dwelling:  it would also be completely contrary to the established pattern of original development.  

Policy H10 also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

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

Request to vary the location plan to form part of the approved plans for an outline application for proposed residential development of up to 41 market and affordable dwellings with access to be considered, at Woods Nurseries Site, Woods Nurseries, High Street, Swineshead, Boston LPA ref B/17/0244.

The Interim Development Manager advised that the report tabled referred to the application which had granted at a previous meeting at which there had been an inaccuracy in the plan submitted.  The error had only been identified during the preparation of the S106 legal agreement. 

Full details of the error and the amended plan were presented to committee.

It was moved by Councillor Alison Austin and seconded by Councillor Michael Cooper that the Committee accept the revised location plan as per the officer’s recommendation.

In Favour:   13.      Against 0.    Abstentions 0.    (Unanimous)

RESOLVED:   That committee accept the revised location plan as per the officer’s recommendation.

It is noted that Councillors Michael Cooper and Claire Rylott absented from the meeting at this point in the proceedings.

Application for the conversion of existing barn to form one dwelling.

Sunnyside Farm   Holme Road   Kirton Holme   Boston   PE20 1TB

Mr and Mrs Richard Rylott

Application for the conversion of existing barn to form one dwelling

Sunnyside Farm, Holme Road, Kirton Holme, Boston,  PE20 1TB

Mr & Mrs R. Rylott

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

No representation was received in respect of this item.

It was moved by Councillor Barrie Pierporint and seconded by Councillor Alison Austin that the application be granted in line with officer recommendation and subject to the conditions and reasons therein.

In Favour:   11.      Against 0.    Abstentions 0.    (Unanimous)

RESOLVED:   That the application be granted in line with officer recommendation and subject to the following 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 plan,

            2/2 Site Location Plan, Block Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations drwg no. 

          1745/2D

the submitted Planning Statement and the e-mail from David Bradley dated 31.10.17 confirming the measures to mitigate against the risk of contamination.

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

3         The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (RM Associates, Version 1, dated August 2017 and in particular the following mitigation measure:

§  Finished floor levels for all habitable rooms shall be set no lower than  3.50m ODN

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented before occupation.

Reason:           To reduce the risk of flooding and to accord with the objectives of the NPPF (2012)

4          The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations contained within the approved Ecology and Protected Species Survey (Scarborough Nixon Associates Limited, dated September 2017).

 Reason:          In the interests of the protection of wildlife habitat and to accord with the objectives of the NPPF (2012)

5          All new external doors, door frames and windows shall be in white painted timber and retained in that form thereafter.

Reason:           In order to retain the character of the barn , in the intersts of the visual amenity and to accord with the objectives of the NPPF (2012)

6          Site clearance operations that involve the destruction or removal of buildings (or part of a building) shall not be undertaken during the month of March to August inclusive, except when approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, once it is satisfied that breeding birds will not be adversely affected.

Reason:            In the interests of nesting and breeding birds, to accord with the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the objectives of Local Plan policies G2 and C07

7          Immediately prior to the commencement of the development the barn shall be checked for the presence of protected species by an ecologist or similarly qualified person.  If there is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

Delegated Decision List 17 November 2017 to 15 December 2017

Committee noted the delegated decision list.