Agenda and draft minutes

Planning Committee - Tuesday, 26th June, 2018 10.00 am

Venue: Committee Room, Municipal Buildings, West Street, Boston, PE21 8QR

Contact: Karen Rist, Democratic Services Officer  Phone: 01205 314226 email:  karen.rist@boston.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

172.

APOLOGIES

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

Minutes:

No apologies for absence were noted.

Councillor Paul Skinner had noted his intent to attend the meeting when able following a conflict of commitments. 

It is noted that Councillor Paul Skinner joined the meeting at 1130 hours during debate on planning application B 18 0060 and took no part in that deliberation.  Councillor Paul Skinner took part all planning applications tabled thereafter.

 

173.

MINUTES pdf icon PDF 319 KB

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

Minutes:

The following is a verbatim minute by Councillor Brian Rush:

Councillor Brian Rush asked if he could interject. 

“Mr Chairman before you get into the body of the meeting I would consider it my duty to seek attention and unfortunately the young lady who is here is not the experienced lady that I was expecting and I do apologise so I’m speaking over your head. Mr Chairman I beg your apologies for this intervention it maybe / may not be within the remit of the Council normally so please do bear with me give me the opportunity to speak.   Monitoring Officer will know that I had an objection made towards her regarding a member of this council, this meeting, this committee.  I asked for clarification from her I have not received that per sae so I was expecting some alteration to your minutes Mr Chairman for either Tuesday 1st May or Tuesday 29th May regarding the action that I took on the day by leaving of this meeting after having, in the presence of Councillor Claire Rylott signed the role of attendance, now if it is clear that if I was here, I did sign the role of attendance on this table in the presence of the people around me, I want to know why there is no reference whatsoever, to what I said, what I did in the minutes I believe this is not a true record of what happened at least someone should have had the decency to mention why I did it what I did it for.  It you want me to elaborate I am happy to do so but I am bound by confidentiality in this regard”.

 

The Chairman responded by thanking Councillor Rush, stating that this was something he had obviously taken up with the Monitoring Officer and he suspected that he would pursue his line of enquiry with her. 

On seeking member’s permission to sign the minutes Councillor Rush interjected and asked if the Chairman could he make sure that what he had said would be noted correctly.  The Chairman advised it would be.

 

The Development Manager then advised committee of an error on page 6 of the minutes which should have read ‘The pessimistic Sedgefield Method instead of the optimistic Sedgefield Method’ and ‘The Optimistic Liverpool Method instead of the pessimistic Liverpool Method’.

Committee were advised that the copy of the minutes for signing had been amended as per the Development Manager’s notification.

 

With the agreement of the committee the Chairman signed the minutes confirming the minutes for the meeting in progress would reflect the Councillor Rush’s comments.

174.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

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

Minutes:

Standing Declarations of Interest are tabled for Lincolnshire County Councillors Alison Austin and Paul Skinner; for Councillors Michael Cooper, David Brown, Sue Ransome and Claire Rylott in their roles as members of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan and for Councillors Peter Bedford, Michael Cooper and Peter Bedford in their roles as representatives of the Drainage Boards.  All three organisations being referenced within the reports tabled.

 

Councillor Yvonne Stevens declared that she had called-in planning application B 17 0511.

Councillor Claire Rylott declared that she would absent from the meeting for planning application B 18 0144 due to conflict in her personal relationship with the applicant.   Furthermore Councillor Rylott declared that whilst the applicant for planning application B 17 0051 was known to her, it did not deter her from determining the application.

Councillor Peter Bedford declared that whilst the applicants for planning applications B 18 0144 were known to him, the knowledge was not of a nature to prevent him from determining each application.  Furthermore Councillor Bedford declared that due to a conflict in his personal relationship with the applicant for planning application B 17 0511, he would absent from the meeting and take no part in the deliberation of that item.

Councillor Stephen Woodliffe declared that due to his personal association with Boston Grammar School, who would be beneficiaries of a section 106 financial contribution should Planning Application B 17 0511 be granted, he would absent from the meeting and take no part in the deliberation of that item.

Councillor Paul Skinner declared he knew the applicant for planning application B 17 0511 but not socially and it would not affect his judgement in determining the application.

 

175.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

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.

Minutes:

No Public Questions were tabled.

 

 

It is recorded that Councillor Claire Rylott absented from the meeting at this point in the proceedings.

 

176.

PLANNING APPLICATION B 18 0144 pdf icon PDF 84 KB

Erection of 2 no. detached two storey residential dwellings and garages and associated works.

 

Land adjacent to Ye Olde Red Lion Public House  Donington Road   Bicker   Boston PE20 3EF

 

Mrs Andrea Thorlby

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Erection of 2 no. detached two storey residential dwellings and garages and associated works.

 

Land Adjacent to Ye Olde Red Lion Public House, Donington Road, Bicker, Boston, PE20 3EF

 

Mrs Andrea Thorlby

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to committee confirming there were no updates to the report tabled, which had been deferred from the previous meeting to allow consideration of a legal opinion following the decision the Council took on the appeal in respect of St. Swithins Close.  The application had been previously recommended for refusal which was now recommended for grant. 

 

 

Representation was received by Mrs Burgess in objection to the application which included:

 

Members were advised that her focus on the planning obligation had always been the protection of an open space which if built on would affect the character of the area and damage the prominence of the historic Red Lion which had formed the gateway to the village for centuries.

 

The Red Lion lay within the village conservation area and the plot of land in question lay just off the southern boundary of the conservation area.  Members were reminded that a conservation area by law was of special architectural or historical interest where it was desirable to preserve and enhance an area.  The proposal was for the two houses to be built against the most historic building in the village.  Referencing the Consultant Architect’s involvement she noted the application had created more distance from the Red Lion and had used more upmarket materials in the design.  Stating there was more than enough space in the village already members were further advised that the application plot was also 3 feet higher in places than the properties on the western side, allowing any new development to dominate the scene.  Members were advised that in September 2017 the Council’s Consultant Architect responded to the planning application by saying that unless there was an approved planning policy for new houses in the village to fulfil the required quota, her view was the application should be refused as it would change the setting of the listed building.   At the same meeting Councillor Austin had stated that the unique village needed to be preserved.  Committee were asked to defer any decision to permit a full committee site visit to take place to allow members to see the application on the site.  If granted members were asked to consider bungalows instead of houses on the site

 

Representation was received by the applicant’s agent Mr Wicks which included:

 

Thanking officers for getting the application back to committee so quickly, members were advised that the agent was pleased that the comments of the Inspector at Bicker had been endorsed by officers in respect of Bicker being a sustainable location with new building helping to maintain not just Bickers’ own amenities, but those in Donington and Swineshead as well which were only 1.5 miles away.  Paragraph 55 of the NPPF fully supported the recommendation proposed by officers and at the last meeting it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 176.

177.

PLANNING APPLICATION B 18 0045 pdf icon PDF 39 KB

Outline application for residential development (up to 3 no. dwellings) including associated works with all matters reserved.

 

Land adjacent to The Farm   Laceys Lane   Leverton   Boston  PE22 0BD

 

Mr and Mrs Oliver and Payne

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Outline application for residential development (up to 3 no. dwellings) including associated works with all matters reserved         

 

Land adjacent to The Farm, Laceys Lane, Leverton, Boston, PE22 7BD

 

Mr & Mrs Oliver and Payne

 

The Development Manager presented the report confirming there were no updates to the report tabled and reiterating the application had been deferred from the previous meeting for the same reasons as the previous application at Bicker.

 

 

Representation was received by the applicant’s agent Mr Wicks which included:

 

Confrming he would keep his representation to a minimum Mr Wicks stated that the application was so closely related to the previous application with sustainability covered by the Bicker Inspector and as the Officer stated paragraph 55 of the NPPF.  The site was 1.5 miles from Old Leake as the previous site was from Donington – just another short car journey between the sites.  There was significant levels of agricultural employment within the Leverton area which probably resulted in many workers travelling out of Boston to work and with such development as the application they could perhaps bike or walk to work.  The agricultural base that the Borough has does make a special case for allowing infil in the villages close the big employers.  It is perhaps a far more sustainable argument than any other.  As noted previously the proposal tidied up ugly agriculatural buildings by developming a natural infil area.  The applicaiton had local support, no objections and would create nearly half a million pounds in local construction work and it has had support throughout from the planning officer.

 

 

It was moved by Councillor Alison Austin and seconded by Councillor James Edwards that the application be granted in line with officer recommendation and subject to the conditions and reasons and the informatives therein:

 

Vote:      In Favour:    12            Against:  0.         Abstentions:  0

 

RESOLVED That planning permission be granted subject to the following reasons and conditions and informatives:

 

1.                      Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

Reason:  Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.              The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

 

Reason:  Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3               No development shall commence until details of the layout, access, appearance, landscaping and scale of the development (hereafter referred to as the 'reserved matters') have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

           Reason:      This is an outline application only and such details must be approved before development commences in order to comply with the objectives of Boston Borough Local Plan 1999, Policies G1 and H3 and required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

4.              The development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 177.

178.

PLANNING APPLICATION B 18 0060 pdf icon PDF 170 KB

Demolition of 36 Strait Bargate and 2 Wide Bargate and part of the boundary wall to the Methodist Church.  Refurbishment and extension of Grade II listed 4 Wide Bargate. Erection of 14 no. retail units (A1); 2 no. retail units (A3/A5); and 15 no. residential apartments, with associated car parking. Creation of a new pedestrian (and delivery/service vehicle) link connecting Wide Bargate to Red Lion Street

 

Land between Wide Bargate and Red Lion Street   Boston    Lincolnshire

 

Mrs Venezia Ross-Gilmore, Texas Group PLC

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Demolition of 36 Strait Bargate and 2 Wide Bargate and part of the boundary wall to the Methodist Church.  Refurbishment and extension of Grade II listed 4 Wide Bargate. Erection of 14 no. retail units (A1); 2 no. retail units (A3/A5); and 15 no. residential apartments, with associated car parking. Creation of a new pedestrian (and delivery/service vehicle) link connecting Wide Bargate to Red Lion Street        

 

Land between Wide Bargate and Red Lion Street, Boston, Lincolnshire

 

Mrs Venezia Ross-Gilmore, Texas Group PLC

 

The Development Manager presented the report, confirming that the following report for listed building consent would be determined seperately. 

 

Three amendments to the report tabled were provided:

 

On paragraph 2.2 where it read 2 – 4 Strait Bargate it should read 2 – 4 Wide Bargate.

 

On paragraph 2.5 it should read 2 Wide Bargate being demolished as no.4 was the listed bulding.

 

Condition 3 should state a minimum of 14 of the retail units should by A1.

 

 

Representation was received by the applicant’s agent Mr Scrafton which included:

 

Thanking committee for their time Mr Scrafton offered a further introduction following the officers presentation.  He confirmed he would not reiterate the assessment of the sites already done.  The Landowners had reached the position where there was now renewed interest in the site and the development coming forward.  That had in turn required a review of the proposal, revisions to overcome outstanding issues and further revisions to respond to the comments made in conjunction with local stakeholders.  With the support of officers, across the departments there had been useful dialogue with the town team, nieghboruing land owners and the heritage consultant.  In terms of planning policy the principle of development is supported through policy RTC1.  Heritage consultations had been thoroughly assessed and subjected to conditions outlined in the applications.  The servicing strategy had been arrived at in close liaison with both officers and County Council colleagues to ensure servicing takes place from the new street which will be created.   The opportunity to provide a direct link from the rejuvinated development to Central Park would be harnessed, the proposal again in liaision with officers ensured a positive link and visual relationship, which balanced the need for management and security of the park in particular by including a lockable gateway to the park.  Discussions with the police had taken place to ensure that public safety, crime prevention and fear of crime matters had all been considered. The development would improve the retail offer of the town and improve its competitive position in relation to other destinations.  The investment would also enhance the conservation area and sustain and enhance the listed buldings.

 

 

It was moved by Councillor James Edwards and seconded by Councillor Sue Ransome that the application be granted in line with officer recommendation, subject to the conditions and reasons therein, subject to the amendment to condition 3, subject to the completion of the section 106 planning obligation in respect of affordable housing and subject to investigation into the implementation of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 178.

179.

PLANNING APPLICATION B 18 0059 pdf icon PDF 170 KB

Listed building consent for single storey extension and refurbishment of 4 Wide Bargate.  Demolition of part of the boundary wall to the Methodist Church and replacement with realigned wall and railings including pedestrian gate.

 

4 Wide Bargate   Boston   Lincolnshire   PE21 6RF

 

Mrs Venezia Ross-Gilmore  Texas Group PLC

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Listed building consent for single storey extension and refurbishment of 4 Wide Bargate.  Demolition of part of the boundary wall to the Methodist Church and replacement with realigned wall and railings including pedestrian gate

 

4, Wide Bargate, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 6RF

 

Mrs Venezia Ross-Gilmore, Texas Group PLC

 

The Development Manager presented the report to the committee

 

No representation was received in respect of this application.

 

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

 

Vote:      In Favour:    12            Against:  0.         Abstentions:  1

 

 

RESOLVED:   That committee grant the application in line with officers recommendation subject to the conditions and reasons therein:

 

1.     The works must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

 

Reason:       Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

 

2.            The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans and details:

 

§   Site Location – 583-2-010 (1/15)

§   Existing Elevations – 583-2-011 rev A (2/15)

§   Existing & Proposed Landscaping Strategy- 583-2-012 rev A (3/15)

§   Existing & Proposed Site Layouts – 583-2-013 rev B (4/15)

§   Existing & Proposed Church Elevations & Details – 583-2-014 rev A (5/15)

§   Proposed Site Layout and Ground Floor – 583-2-015 rev B (6/15)

§   Proposed Elevations with Notes Sheet 1 – 583-2-019 rev A (9/15)

§   Proposed Elevations with Notes Sheet 2 – 583-2-020 rev B (10/15)

§   Listing Building – Existing Elevations – 583-2-021 rev A (12/15)

§   Listed Building – Existing Plans – 583-2-022 (13/15)

§   Listed Building – Proposed Elevations – 583-2-023 (14/15)

§   Listed Building – Proposed Plans - 583-2-024 (15/15)

 

Reason:            To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved details and to accord with Boston Borough Local Plan 1999, Policy G1.

 

3.            Before any work is commenced, details of the design of the shopfront to the Listed Building, including drawings to a scale of not less than 1:20, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The details shall include guidelines for the design (including the use of materials) of fascias, stallrisers, translucent shop windows and doors.  The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

 

.        Reason:            To ensure that the appearance of the completed works respects the special character and appearance of the listed building and to accord with Boston Borough Local Plan 1999, Policy G1 and National Planning Policy Framework.

 

4.         Before any work is commenced details of the design of the proposed kiosks, including drawings to a scale of not less than 1:20, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The details shall show the method of fixing and flashings to the listed building.  The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and before the building is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 179.

180.

PLANNING APPLICATION B 18 0078 pdf icon PDF 32 KB

Erection of replacement residential dwelling with removal of existing Agricultural Habitation Clause, and change of use of land from agricultural to domestic curtilage including excavation of conservation lake and temporary siting of static caravans

 

Mobile Farm, Manor Farm, Manor Lane, Wrangle, Boston, PE22 9DE

 

Mr & Mrs S Sandwell

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Erection of replacement residential dwelling without attaching an                                   existing Agricultural Habitation Clause, and change of use of land from agricultural to domestic curtilage including retrospective                                   excavation of conservation lake and temporary siting of static                                   caravans

 

Mobile Farm, Manor Lane, Wrangle, Boston, PE22 9DE

 

Mr & Mrs S. Sandwell

 

The Development Manager presented the report and provided members with updates to the report tabled.

 

Referencing the report members were advised that on page 85 the word cartilage should read as curtilage.

 

3 late submission of representation had been received all in support of the application:

The first from Gary English who advised he farmed adjoining land and he considered the application site for agricultural purposes was not viable.

A similar response had also been received from George Danby who advised he has farmed land for over 50 years. 

A letter had also been received from Parish Councillor Charles Foster who also considered the agricultural clause was not relevant as the site was not viable for farming.

A letter had also been circulated from the applicants supporting thier proposal.

 

Members were advised of two amendments to the report tabled:

 

Para 3.5 referenced that the microfiche was difficult to read. It should reference section 22.1 which defined agriculture

 

Para 8.4 on page 98.  From the description of the development the proposal wa for replacement dwelling and a change of use without an agricultural tie condition.  Therefore point 2 which considered options to attach the tie or refuse it, committee did not have that option with the application to attach the agricultural condition.

 

Representation was received from Parish Councillor Dandy who advised he would be speaking both on behalf of Wrangle Parish Council and the as a businessman which included:

 

Speaking on behalf of Wrangle Parish Council, Councillor Danby advised that that Parish Council unanimously supported the application and were very keen to see the site tidied up and put to good use.  It had been derelict and unused for many years and for a long extended period had no commercial activity and was now an eyesore.    It was not considered a large enough site to consider a viable enterprise.  It was clear that the application provided a wonderful opportunity to create a large area of ideal natural habitat.  The Parish Council were aware the site was seriously contaminated with glass from the glass houses which were derelict.

Speaking as a Farmer Mr Danby stated it was necessary for farms and agricultural business’s to be audited to strict standards required for selling produce to most outlets.  The contaminated land would not be acceptable.  The proposal for agricultural support post Brexit was for environmental rather than area support and would be the priority as it was now deemed necessary to leave a good environmental legacy for future generations.  There was no longer a need for a habitational clause compared with years ago as there was a very small number of local people working in agriculture, which was why the site had been left derelict.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 180.

181.

PLANNING APPLICATION B 17 0511 pdf icon PDF 652 KB

Outline application for proposed residential development of up to 200 no. dwellings with access to be considered

 

Land south of Wainfleet Road, Boston, PE21 9RN

 

Mr Richard Hardy

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Outline application for proposed residential development of up to 200 no. dwellings with access to be considered

 

Land South of Wainfleet Road, Boston, PE21 9RN

 

Mr Richard Hardy

 

The Development Manager presented the report to the committee and advised updates to the report tabled:

 

A letter had been received from Mr Langstaff had been circulated to all member.

 

The agent had also clarified ownership of the land which identified that the application site is fully owned by Richard Hardy the applicant.  Land outside where works are needed to the highway the majority of land is owned by Lincolnshire County Council but some was unregistered land but it is understood and the applicant has spoken with Lincolnshire County Council and it is adoptable highway land.

 

Members were advised of amendments within the report under section 2.1 in which Sandringham Road noted should read Sandringham Gardens and SomersbyGardens should read is Somersby Green.

 

Correspondence from one objector commented on the number of objections listed where is says 40 third party representations:  it is 40 letters from different people however some people had written in more than once and so the total number of letter received including the petition is 49.

 

The Development Manager sought one addtional recommendation:

That no development shall be undertaken within 5 metres of the ditch to the Southern boundary including storage materials.  A fence shall be provided to deliniateing the 5 metre buffer prior to commencement of develoment and shall be retained during construction.

 

Representation was received in objection to the application from Mr Langstaff which included:

 

Referencing the large number of responses Mr Langstaff confirmed he spoke on behalf of many who he stressed, had very grave concerns and misgivings regarding the planning application and the unreliability of desk top studies submitted.  Members were reminded that origianlly local authorities and agencies also had concerns regarding any development on the area of land as it was deemed unsuitable and had been removed from the proposed new local plan.  Mr Langstaff questionned if Boston needed more housing in addition to what was already available for development and noted that different reports resulted in different conclusions.   Referencing the impact of the development on the site Mr Longstaff stated that perhaps the committee had been told that it would have little impact on the area, however he stated that the people who lived in Boston would find that to be an impossible and unrealistic assumption.  Recognising that choices and decisons would always be difficult, members were advised that the objectors hoped that their own local undertanding and common sense would prevail and members would decline the application for the intial development on prime grade 1 agricultural land.

 

Representation was received from the agent Mr Dwan which included:

 

Recognising the depth of presentation by the Development Manger, Mr Dwan noted that the crucial aspect on the site had been a number of assessments undertaken in the context of the potential development, the reliability of which had been called into question by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 181.

182.

DELEGATED DECISION LIST pdf icon PDF 40 KB

A report by the Development Manager

Minutes:

Committee noted the Delegated Decision List.