Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Tuesday, 15th January, 2019 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

61.

APOLOGIES

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

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were tabled for Councillor Alison Austin, Councillor Richard Austin substituting and for Councillor Claire Rylott with Councillor Tom Ashton substituting.

 

62.

MINUTES pdf icon PDF 464 KB

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

Minutes:

With the agreement of the committee the Chairman signed the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 11 December 2018.

63.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

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

Minutes:

Standing declarations of interest are recorded for Councillors noted below in their respective roles:

 

Members of Lincolnshire County Council:

Councillors Tom Ashton and Paul Skinner.

Members of South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee:

David Brown, Michael Cooper and Sue Ransome

Representatives of Internal Drainage Boards:

Peter Bedford and Michael Cooper.

 

A collective declaration of interest was recorded for all members of the planning committee in respect of planning application B 18 0503 in that the applicant was known to them as an officer of Boston Borough Council.

 

Councillor Stephen Woodliffe declared it was his intent to speak in his role as Ward Member for planning application B 18 0454 and as such he would absent from the meeting for that item.

 

Councillor Tom Ashton declared for transparency that he was one of the Ward Members for planning application B 18 0456 and whilst he had been in attendance at Old Leake Parish Council when the item had been raised, he had offered no opinion nor taken part in any discussion and as such, felt he could determine the application with an open mind.

 

64.

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 – for this meeting the deadline is 5 p.m. on Thursday 10th January 2019.

Minutes:

No public questions were tabled.

65.

PLANNING APPLICATION B 18 0456 pdf icon PDF 38 KB

Outline permission for the construction of up to 5 dwellings, with all matters reserved (Layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping).

 

Blue Bungalow, Pode Lane, Old Leake, Boston, PE22 9NB

 

Mrs Margaret Dickings

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Outline application with all matters (layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping) reserved for the construction of up to 5 dwellings

 

Blue Bungalow, Pode Lane, Old Leake, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE22 9NB

 

Mrs Margaret Dickings

 

The Growth Manager presented the report confirming that the application was a re-submission of the original application which had been presented to committee in September 2018.  The original application had been outline as was the current application.   The original application had been for up to 6 dwellings against the new application being up to 5 dwellings.

 

For information members were advised the original application was currently under appeal.   That application had been refused due to the potential number of dwellings; over development of the site and the cramped appearance which would arise.  (paragraph 3.1 of the report noted the full reasons of the refusal)

 

Members were advised that officers were suggesting an additional condition be attached to the recommendation stating that no more than five dwellings in total, including the existing dwellings if retained, shall be provided on the site.

 

 

Representation was received from the applicant’s agent Mr Stuart which included:

 

Mr Stuart stated that much of what he had to say was reiteration of the Officer’s presentation and points.  The previous application on the site had been refused at the September committee despite being recommended for approval by Mrs Hughes who also acted as the case officer in that instance.  This application had also been recommended for approval by a different case officer on this occasion and committee members would confirm both were highly expereinced planning officers who knew planning law and policy thoroughly and both recommendations had a sound basis.  The applicant had already lodged an appeal against the previous refusal, without wishing to appear beligerant should committee refuse the current application, the applicant would appeal that one too and the paperwork had already been done so it was a no brainer for them and should that be the case, the applicant would seek costs.  Referenceing the number of objections, Mr Staurt stated none were valid.  The application was only before committee after being called in by Councillor Pierpoint due to concerns relating to parking and highways issues, both of which were not valid matters for committee’s consideration.  The application was in outline with all matters reserved therefore parking arrangements remained to be determined.  Furthermore highways a relevant statutory consultee were satsified with that aspect of the proposal.  The previous application had not been refused on those grounds therefore to do so on this application would be inconsistent and insupportable at appeal.  The previous application was refused on the single ground of over development of the site resulting in a cramped appearance.  The current application was essentially of the same nature but the maximum quantum of the development had been reduced by 20%.  Statutory consultee responses remained the same and considered the proposal acceptable.  To introduce any new or additional reasons for refusal would be unsupportable.  The actual number of dwellings would be determined at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

66.

PLANNING APPLICATION B 18 0503 pdf icon PDF 45 KB

Approval of reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) following outline approval B/17/0093, for the erection of detached two storey dwelling

 

Land adjacent to 122 West End Road, Wyberton, Boston, PE21 7LP

 

Mr Steve Johnston

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application for the approval of reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) following outline approval B/17/0093, for the erection of detached two storey dwelling

 

Land adjacent to 122 West End Road, Wyberton, Boston, PE21 7LP

 

Mr Steve Johnston

 

The Growth Manager presented the report, confrming that the reason for the tabling was the applicant was a member of the planning staff and then provided updates to the report tabled.

 

  1. Wyberton Parish Council had responded and had no objection to the application.

 

  1. Lincolnshire County Council acting a the highway authority and lead local authority  had raised no objections subject an additional two informatives:

§  One in respect of the new/amaneded vehicular access

§  One in that contact be made with Lincolnshire County Council Streetworks and Permitting Team in relation to statutory utility connections.

 

No representation was received in respect of this application.

 

It was moved by Councillor Michael Cooper and seconded by Councillor Tom Ashton:

 

That committee grant the application in line with officer recommendation, subject to the one condition therein and the two informatives requested by Lincolnshire County Council.

 

Vote:       In Favour    13.     Against    0.    Abstention    0

 

RESOLVED:       That committee grant the application in line with officer recommendation subject to the following condition and two informatives:

 

1             The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

 

§    Site Location Plan, Drwg no. 12-404-03

§    Block Plan, Elevations, First Floor Plan, Visuals Drwg no. 12-404-

         02

§    Elevations, Ground Floor Plan, Visuals Drwg no. 12-404-01 rev D

 

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

 

Informatives:

 

1.           The permitted development requires the formation of a new/amended vehicular access.  Applicants should note the provisions of Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980. The works should be constructed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority in accordance with the Authority's specification that is current at the time of construction. For further information, please telephone 01522 782070.

 

2.           Please contact the Lincolnshire County Council Streetworks and Permitting Team. 01522 782070 to discuss any proposed statutory utility connections and any other works which will be required within the public highway in association with the development permitted under this Consent. This will enable Lincolnshire County Council to assist in the coordination and timings of these works.

 

In determining this application, the authority has taken account of the guidance in paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 in order to seek to secure sustainable development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the Borough

 

 

67.

PLANNING APPLICATION B 18 0394 pdf icon PDF 56 KB

Resubmission of B/18/0192 for the erection of single storey building to form

veterinary practice (Class D1), car park area and associated works

           

Plot 6 Endeavour Park, Boardsides, Boston, PE21 7TR

 

Mr D Feldmar

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Resubmission of B/18/0192 for the erection of single storey building to form veterinary practice (Class D1), car park area and associated works.

           

Plot 6, Endeavour Park, Boardsides, Boston, PE21 7TR

 

Mr D Feldmar

 

The Growth Manager presented the report confirming that the application was presented as a departure from both the Adopted and Emerging Local Plans.  Sustantiating evidence had been provided that the site had been marketed for policy compliant development between July 2015 and May 2018 with no intrrest having been shown.   

 

The Growth Manager advised committee it may wish to add a further condition to  only permit the use of the development as a D1 Veterinary Surgery and for no other uses within that use class.

 

 

 

 

Representation was received from the applicant’s agent Mr Hey which included:

 

Stating he could add little to the statements within the report which he felt to be very fair, Mr Hey advised the reason he had attended was because he felt it discourteous to have the report presented at committee without actually being in attendance.  He reitereated just how hard the marketing agents had tried to find somebody to try to buy or rent the site:  the current proposal was the only one to emerge after the high number of information packs being sent out.  All the agents had tried very hard and in line with the outcome, Mr Hey stated he hoped that the minor departure was acceptable as it would add to the locality.

 

It was moved by Councillor James Edwards and seconded by Councillor Jonathan Noble:

 

That committee grant the application in line with officer recommedation, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives therein and subject to the additional condition to prevent the change of use.

 

Vote:       In Favour    13.     Against    0.    Abstention    0

 

RESOLVED:       That committee grant the application in line with officer recommendation subject to the following condition and informatives:

 

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 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

 

2.         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the application received 14-Sep-2018 and in accordance with the associated plans referenced:

 

§  1/2 Site Location Plan

§   0139/18/01 – Floor Plans and Elevations


Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved details, in the interest of residential amenity and to comply with Saved Policy G1 of Boston Borough Local Plan 1999.

 

3.         The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment dated May 2018, incorporating the following mitigation measures:

 

§  Finished floor levels to be set no lower than 2.2mAOD

§  All electrical sockets to be a minimum of 450mm above the finished floor level.

 

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and be maintained for the lifetime of the development.

 

Reason:  To reduce the risk of flooding to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

68.

PLANNING APPLICATION B 18 0454 pdf icon PDF 50 KB

Erection of 3 no. 8m high lighting columns with 300w LED floodlights

 

Peter Paine Performance Centre, Rosebery Avenue, Boston, PE21 7QR

 

Shawn Thomas, Boston College

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Erection of 3 no. 8m high lighting columns with 300w LED floodlight.

 

Peter Paine Performance Centre, Rosebery Avenue, Boston, PE21 7QR.

 

Mr Shawn Thomas, Boston College.

 

The Growth Manager presented the report to the committee confirming there were no updates to the report tabled.

 

Presentation was received from Ward Member Councillor Stephen Woodliffe which included:

 

Stressing that he was very supportive of the college and agreeing that the facilities of Peter Paine needed to be used positively, he stated that whilst the application did not affect residents on Rosebery Avenue, the lights would affect Harrow Place which was not mentioned on the map.  A very significant development called Rosebery North was being developed close to the drain and when Peter Paine had been taken over by Boston College and the fields around were undeveloped, had the lights been put in at that time there would have been no complaints.  However, there was now a very large development along the drain, approximately 120 houses being built.   The residents of Harrow Place would be facing the lights.  Councillor Woodliffe then confirmed he had called the application in on grounds on G1 Amenity with possible effects by G10 clauses 3 and 4.   The difficulty was the nearby residents might not appreciate the impact of such bright lights, prior them being installed.  Once in place it would be difficult to do anything about them.  Environmental Health had stated they had reservations in respect of light spillage beyond the site, in particular relation to Harrow Place.  Having spoken with those residents Councillor Woodliffe confirmed that they had voiced concerns about the impact the lights could have facing their homes.  Residents had noted that the existing floodlights already caused a noise disturbance with people playing sport and felt the same impact would be created by installation of the proposed lighting.

Members were advised that Councillor Woodliffe’s principal concern was the power of the lights.  He referenced an experiment in America the Chesapeake Bay Waterman’s Study which analysed fishermen exposed to bright lights reflecting off water daily: the blue light exposure had been found to increase the risk of age- related macular degeneration.  It had however been difficult to quantify light exposure in everday life.  In experimental mice bright light had caused permanent retinal damage.  If the light had the intensity of sunlight, short exposure times could cause damage.  If the light was not so bright chronic exposure over days to weeks could cause permanent damage known as photo-oxalated damage.    It also suggested people with blue eyes had a much greater risk.   Addressing the lights in the application, members were advised that they operated at a rating of 6000 degress centigrade which reflected the brightness of the sun where the surface was 6000 degrees centigrade.  The lights as such operated at a light colour value of 6000 centigrade and produced around 27,000 lumen.   A standard car headlight was 1000 lumen so as such the total light produced could be similar to 81,000 lumen over the three lights.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

69.

PLANNING APPLICATION VALIDATION CHECK LIST. pdf icon PDF 261 KB

A Report by the Growth Manager

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Growth Manager presented the report acknowledging that most members would recognise it, having agreed that it be taken out for consultation on the 16 October 2019.

 

Consultation took place between the 22nd October and 30th November and 9 responses’ had been received and were detailed within the report.  Within the responses was commentary as to whether or not the check list would be updated as a result of the comments and the Council’s thoughts on those comments.

 

A number of responses had been anonymous which officer’s felt were from members of the public and not from consultees, although a number of consultees had responded as well.

 

A number of amendments were included between pages 105 – 153 of the report and highlighted in red for assistance for members’ reference.

Members were advised it was also recommended that following the printing of the report, further changes be to the householder check list to remove the landscaping scheme requirement and also to modify the parking and access arrangements so that the requirements were commensurate with the types of development bought forward. 

 

It was proposed that the landscaping scheme on page 150 be removed in its entirety and the parking and access arrangements it was proposed that it related more relevantly to householders as within it included servicing provision which for a householder would not apply.

 

Subject to committee’s agreement it was hoped the check list could be adopted which would assist planning officers in dealing with planning applications and once in place it was expected that the time period from receipt of the application to its determination would be quicker.  Furthermore for committee member’s it would allow them to have all the information required to make an informed decision on whether or not to call an application in.

 

Committee comments followed which included:

 

There was general agreement that both check lists would be of great benefit moving forward for both officer’s and for the committee members.  It was agreed that parking and access arrangements would assist immensely and include electric charging points and bear relevance when indicative plans were submitted whereby parking was not aside the residence but on another part of the site. 

 

The Growth Manager stated that as a point of clarification on the householder check list, which would include hard standings and out buildings and similar, it would be removed but would remain on the full and other applications, such as new and commercial applications.

 

Referencing appendix 2 the householder applications paged 141 – 153 a member noted that a householder wishing to extend their property would usually require any agent to draw up the plans and asked what were the new requirements listed for household applications that did not exist previously, or were there none.

The Growth Manager responded by advising that in the long term there were none other than them having to number their drawings.  The difference would be that the information would be submitted at the outset rather than an officer having  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

70.

DELEGATED DECISION LIST pdf icon PDF 31 KB

Standing Report.

Minutes:

 

Committee noted the report.