Venue: Committee Room, Municipal Buildings, West Street, Boston, PE21 8QR
Contact: Karen Rist, Democratic Services Officer Phone: 01205 314226 email: firstname.lastname@example.org
To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitutes (if any).
Apologies were tabled by Councillor Paul Skinner with Councillor Colin Brotherton substituting.
To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.
With the agreement of the committee the Chairman signed the minutes of the last planning committee meeting held on the 6 February 2018.
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
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 Councillor Alison Austin as a member of Lincolnshire County Council; in respect of 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.
The clerk further advised that a lobbying form had been tabled with the Council by Councillor Yvonne Stevens in respect of planning application B 17 0397.
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.
Erection of 9.no industrial units, construction of and vehicular access
and associated parking areas.
Reed Point Spalding Road Sutterton Boston
Mr Richard King
Erection of 9 no. industrial units, construction of new vehicular access, and associated parking areas
Reed Point, Spalding Road, Sutterton, Boston, PE20 2EP
Mr Richard King, Fossitt and Thorne 2003 Pension Scheme
The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to the committee advising one updated to the report tabled. Referencing members to the consultation section of the report the officer advised that the Council’s Economic Development Manager had responded confirming his support of the application which members were reminded needed to be taken into consideration as a material consideration.
Representation was received in objection to the application by Mr Knight which included:
Referencing the bend in the road close to the site the objector stated that the area was outside of the village envelope and drivers did not comply with speed limits. Residents close to the site would suffer with light and noise pollution. There was no main drainage at Reed Point so it would mean a septic tank. Further areas of objection noted that alternative sites within the village, including the area behind the units on Spalding Road, were available and he commented that it would be preferable to keep all the industrial units together in one place. Concluding the objector questioned how a change of use of the site had been secured as he stated the site had always been arable and pasture land and stated that vehicle movements would increase significantly to the site by employees and visitors to the businesses.
Representation was received by the applicant’s agent Mr Evans which included:
The site was in a sustainable location surrounded by existing industrial activity located close to the A17 giving direct links to wider regions. Referencing the Transport Statement he noted that it stated whilst most movements would come from the A17, the site was in easy walking distance and cycling distance of the village of Sutterton.
The surrounding area contained many other commercial developments with the Anglian Water Pumping Station at the rear and across the road the tyre recycling centre and wood yard.
Planning permission had already granted for a large flour processing plant. Further commercial properties were sited just across the A17.
The need for the development in Reed Point had been demonstrated by agents from the East Midlands who reported a lack of industrial stock and light industrial stock in the area would impede growth in the area. Local agents Pygott and Crone confirmed that light industrial units were in demand in the location and was supported by the applicants who had received many informal enquiries from prospective users of the development.
Landscaping proposals would enhance the ecology of the site including planting wildflowers and native trees. The development would transform a piece of wasteland into a species rich habitat which compliant with policy G2 with sensitive design of the buildings and a carefully landscaped setting.
It was moved by Councillor Jonathan Edwards and seconded by Councillor Michael Cooper that the application by refused in line with officer recommendation for the reasons therein: ... view the full minutes text for item 132.
Demolition of existing property and outbuildings and erection
of 5 dwellings with associated works.
16 York Street Boston Lincolnshire PE21 6JN
Mr and Mrs C Adcock
Demolition of existing property and outbuildings and erection of 5 dwellings with associated works
16 York Street, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 6JN
Mr & Mrs C Adcock
The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and confirmed committee that two letter of support had been received since issuing of the agenda: one from no. 17 York Street and one from no. 20 York Street.
Representation was received in objection to the application by Mr Anstey which included:
Thanking Mr Taylor for his assistance during liaison in respect of the development Mr Anstey confirmed he was speaking on behalf of his friends affected by the development and not on behalf of himself. He stated that there had been a number of amendments to the plan with 3 variatios of the theme of the development. The main concern noted was an increase in noise and the possible erection of a Berlin Wall style wall which would be totally objectionable to the neighbours and crease an eyesore for all parties. Stressing he did not wish to inhibit the future development of housing in Boston, Mr Anstey confirmed that should the development have two bungalows as opposed to two storey houses it would make a difference.
Objections had further been identified in respect of the loss of light to the kitchen and stair case. Committee were asked to recognise that the 5 new buildings could result in 10 families living on the site resulting in additional cars; litter bins and increased noise from outdoor activity from both children and adults.
Representation was received by the applicants agent Mr Wickes which included:
Members were advised it had been a difficult design in order to overcome all the potential amenity issues. He confirmed Mr Taylor and his own staff had worked hard to create a solution to fully overcome the issues. The development would bring 5 low cost dwellings where needed right into the centre of Boston.
All amenities were within walking distance and members were asked to agree there would be no question of the site not being sustainable. The final design also ensured no overshadowing of neighbouring gardens. The roofs had been lowered creating semi dormers making these lower than the adjacent houses and it had also overcome flood risk issues. The traditional street scene frontage along York Street had been retained and each property provided 2 car parking spaces. The turning space allowed for leaving of the site in a forward gear and members were advised that he two rear dwellings would be sited 25 metres away fom no. 18,
It was moved by Councillor Brian Rush and seconded by Councillor Stephen Raven that the application by defer to enable an official planning committee site visit to take place:
Vote: In Favour: 4. Against: 9. Abstentions: 0.
Resolved: The motion fell.
It was moved by Councillor Peter Bedford and seconded by Councillor James Edwards that the application be granted in line with officer recommendation and subject to the conditions and reasons therein:
Vote: In ... view the full minutes text for item 133.
Outline application for the erection of 45 no. dwellings, including access and layout with appearance, landscaping and scale reserved for later approval.
Land off Tooley Lane Wrangle Boston PE22 9BL
Mr W Edwards
Outline application for the erection of 45 no. dwellings, including access an layout with appearance, landscaping and scale reserved for later approval
Land off Tooley Lane, Wrangle, Boston, PE22 9BL
Mr W Edwards
It is recorded at this point in the proceedings that Councillor Brian Rush declared he was conflicted with the application as a member of his family resided within the area of the site. He advised he would take no part in the deliberation or determination of the application.
The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and advised that a further 5 additional letters of objection had been received following issue of the agenda, all from neighbours who had already made representation. Their main objections were concern on the impact on third party flooding; errors and mistakes and false assumptions made in both the submitted flood risk report and the protected species report and that the Section 106. Should have triggers requiring contributions to be made at 50% of the development to ensure are they are delivered as opposed to them being made on the last dwelling. Objections also questioned the validity of Parish Councils consideration of the application.
Representation was received by the applicant which included:
Committee were advised that the family had historical roots within the local area and had farmed in Wrangle for many generations. They were very pro-active in supporting village life in a variety of ways including representation on the Parish Council; committee youth club and board of governors and also in supporting the Wrangle show. Furthermore the family had been active in assisting in clearing local roads of snow during recent severe weather conditions.
When they had been approached with a view to securing land for development, they had as a family discussed and agreed the field would be suitable and had commissioned Neil Dowlman Architecture to proceed with the application with a design in keeping with a village scene. It had been agreed to only apply for the dwelling density as within the white paper and also to apply for a higher percentage of low cost housing at 20%. As a local employer whose employees lived in Boston, Mr Edwards stated he had recognised the need for affordable housing in the villages. The site was within easy walking and cycling distance of the village facilities.
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 provisos, conditions and reasons therein and that an additional condition limiting the number of dwellings on the site to 45.
Vote: In Favour: 12. Against: 0. Abstentions: 0.
RESOLVED: That the committee grant the application in line with officer recommendation and subject to the following proviso’s, conditions and reasons:
§ Any permission is not released until the applicants have entered into a section 106 planning obligation with the Council requiring the provision of 10 affordable units and contributions of £120,375 towards education and £19,980 towards health.
Erection of two storey dwelling incorporating a shop/office (for the management of the holiday lodges and fishing lake), a detached outbuilding (to house vehicles and grounds maintenance equipment and a small workshop) and a detached bio-mass boiler room.
Land off Cowbroads Lane Old Leake Commonside Boston PE22 9QZ
Mr and Mrs Paul Wilkinson Wilkinson Property (Boston) Ltd
Erection of a two storey dwelling, incorporating a shop/office (for the management of the holiday lodges and fishing lake), a detached outbuilding (to house vehicles and grounds maintenance equipment and a small workshop) and a detached bio-mass boiler room
Land off Cowbroads Lane, Old Leake Commonside, Boston, PE22 9QZ
Mr & Mrs Paul Wilkinson, Wilkin Property (Boston) Ltd
The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and confirmed that no updates to the report had been tabled following issue of the agenda.
Committee were asked to note that within section 5 of the report, 13 letters of support for the application had been received.
Representation was received by the applicant which included:
Members were advised that when purchased initially the site had been a dumping ground on which now the applicant had constructed four fishing lodges and landscaped the 16 acre site. Furthermore, the family had also planted 3500 trees on the site and erected over 100 bird boxes. Since opening a year ago the site now attracted visitors from all over the world.
The build would be totally unique with the house being eco-friendly using a timber construction and red cedar cladding. It would also be very energy efficient and totally sustainable via use of a bio-mass boiler / log burners and solar panels.
Currently the family lived 7 miles from the site which was not practical and caused concern for security.
It also proved problematic at check in times when guests arrived early or later than scheduled. It was also difficult to maintain the site as there was no garaging to keep equipment in and no security on the site.
Concluding the applicant stated he had been overwhelmed with the support of his neighbours. He noted he understood the concerns of the Parish Council but stressed the solar panels would be hidden, and in line with their suggestion, he confirmed that if the application should be successful, he would purchase more mature trees to plant alongside the house to compliment it.
It was moved by Councillor Jonathan Noble 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: 13. Against: 0. Abstentions: 0.
RESOLVED: That the committee grant the application in line with officer recommendation and subject to the following reasons and conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the supplication forms, the supporting planning statement and the following approved plans;
§ Ref: 03 Rev C ‘Site Plan’ (3A/11)
§ Ref: 04 Rev C ‘Block Plan’ (4A/11)
§ Ref: 05 Rev B ‘Ground Floor Plan’ (5A/11)
§ Ref: 06 Rev A ‘First Floor Plan’ (6/11)
§ Ref: 07 Rev A ‘West and South Elevations’ (7/11)
§ Ref: 08 Rev A ... view the full minutes text for item 135.
Delegated decision list for the period 22.01.18 to 16.02.18
The Development Manager referred committee to pages 88 and 89 of the report and confirmed that the three items referencing Viking Link were not delegated decisions, but had been decided by committee.
No further comments were made and committee noted the delegated decision list for the period 22-01-18 to 16.02.18.