Agenda and minutes

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

There were apologies for absence from Councillor Paul Skinner; Councillor Deborah Evans was in attendance as his substitute. 

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting, held on 28^th May 2019.

The minutes of the Committee’s last meeting, held on 28^th May 2019, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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

Standing declarations of interest are noted for :

Councillors Tom Ashton and Alison Austin in their respective roles as Members of Lincolnshire County Council. 

Councillors Tom Ashton, Michael Cooper, Neill Hastie and Brian Rush in their roles as Members of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee, Councillor Jonathan Noble as a Substitute Member of that Committee and Councillor Alison Austin as the County Council representative on that Committee. 

Councillors Tom Ashton, Frank Pickett, Peter Bedford and Michael Cooper in their respective roles as representatives on the Internal Drainage Boards.  

Individual declarations of interest were then made as follows:

With respect to the five applications B/19/0242 - 246, for which the Council was the applicant, Councillor Chelcei Sharman declared that she was the Council’s Portfolio Holder for Open Spaces.

The Chairman, Councillor Tom Ashton, declared that he would step down from the chair for consideration of B/19/0168 in order to speak as Ward Member and the Vice-Chairman would chair the meeting. 

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 18^th July 2019.

No public questions had been submitted.

Installation of a customised navigation Buoy as a sculptural artwork

Promontory Opposite Black Sluice, London Road PE21 7RB

Luke Skerritt, Boston Borough Council

Installation of a customised navigation Buoy as a sculptural artwork

Promontory Opposite Black Sluice, London Road PE21 7RB

Luke Skerritt, Boston Borough Council

The Growth Manager presented the report along with the four following reports, all for the installation of customised navigation buoys as sculptural artwork in five locations around Boston. 

It was reported that, since the publication of the agenda pack, confirmation had been received from Lincolnshire County Council that they had no objections to any of the applications. 

It was proposed by the Chairman, Councillor Tom Ashton, and seconded by Councillor Alison Austin, that planning permission be granted as recommended by the Growth Manager for all five applications.

Vote: Unanimous

RESOLVED That planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the conditions set out below:

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 approved shall be carried out in accordance with the Approved specifications set out in the “Planning Design Statement Boston Quays Scheme”

Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved details and to accord with Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2011-2036).

Informative

In determining this application the authority has taken account of the guidance in paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 in order to seek to secure sustainable development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the Borough.

Installation of a customised navigation Buoy as a sculptural artwork

Coach Station Roundabout, St Georges Road, Boston

Luke Skerritt, Boston Borough Council

Installation of a customised navigation Buoy as a sculptural artwork

Coach Station Roundabout, St Georges Road, Boston

Luke Skerritt, Boston Borough Council

See Minute 15 above.

Installation of a customised navigation Buoy as a sculptural artwork

Land adjacent to Haven Bridge, Buoy Yard Car Park, Boston

Luke Skerritt, Boston Borough Council

Installation of a customised navigation Buoy as a sculptural artwork

Land adjacent to Haven Bridge, Buoy Yard Car Park, Boston

Luke Skerritt, Boston Borough Council

See Minute 15 above.

Installation of a customised navigation Buoy as a sculptural artwork

Land adjacent to Haven Bridge, South Square, Boston

Luke Skerritt, Boston Borough Council

Installation of a customised navigation Buoy as a sculptural artwork

Land adjacent to Haven Bridge, South Square, Boston

Luke Skerritt, Boston Borough Council

See Minute 15 above.

Installation of a customised navigation Buoy as a sculptural artwork

Land adjacent to Art Deco Garden, Central Park, Boston

Luke Skerritt, Boston Borough Council

Installation of a customised navigation Buoy as a sculptural artwork

Land adjacent to Art Deco Garden, Central Park, Boston

Luke Skerritt, Boston Borough Council

See Minute 15 above.

Erection of two storey dwelling

Land Adjoining, Glebe Cottage, Main Road, Wrangle, Boston PE22 9HT

Mr & Mrs S Priestley

Erection of two storey dwelling

Land Adjoining, Glebe Cottage, Main Road, Wrangle, Boston PE22 9HT

Mr & Mrs S Priestley

[The Chairman, Councillor Tom Ashton, stepped down from the chair to speak as Ward Member and left the meeting thereafter for the whole of the debate and vote on this application.]

Vice-Chairman in the chair.

The Growth Manager presented the report.

The Chairman, Councillor Tom Ashton, then addressed the Committee as Ward Member in order to express the views of the Parish Council, of which he was a Member.

In summary, the Parish Council considered that the borough would be provided with sufficient housing allocation through the new Local Plan and, although development was allowed on windfall sites, proposals had to satisfy planning policies in terms of character, place and amenity. 

The Parish Council did not believe that the application satisfied Policy 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan and paragraph 127 a, b, c and d of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on the grounds that, due to the inadequate size of the plot; the reduction of the plot size of the existing dwelling that the proposed dwelling would be built; and the density being twice that of neighbouring properties, it would be out of character with the area.  Also, the proposed contemporary design was not sympathetic with existing dwellings; although there was a ‘mix’ of property type, they were traditional.  This was contrary to the NPPF, in that development should add to the overall quality of an area, and Local Plan Policy 3, which stated that applications of an inappropriate design that failed to improve the quality of an area should not be accepted. 

In conclusion, Councillor Ashton urged the Committee to consider refusing the application on the grounds of density, the use of green space and a design that would not enhance or fit within the area.

[Councillor Ashton left the room at this point.]

Following debate, it was proposed by Councillor Yvonne Stevens and seconded by Councillor Brian Rush that planning permission be granted as recommended by the Growth Manager.

Vote: 8 for, 2 against.

RESOLVED That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out below:

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 30-Apr-2019 and in accordance with the associated plans referenced:

§     11453 01

§     1145302

§     1145303B

§     1145304D

Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved details, in the interest of the character of the area and residential amenity and in accordance with Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036.

3.      No works above ground shall commence until details of all external and facing materials are submitted for approval by the local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

(A report by Mike Gildersleeves, Growth Manager)

[The Chairman returned to the room at this point.]

The Growth Manager presented an update on impending changes to Section 106 Planning Obligation legislation.

The Government had recently published its response to its consultation on reforming developer contributions, suggesting a number of changes to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which the Council had not adopted, and also to Section 106 Planning Obligations (S106s).  Draft legislation had been published and was due to come into force on 1^st September 2019.  This would impact on the negotiation and drafting of the S106s as well as their monitoring. 

Pooling arrangements, which prevented local authorities from using more than five S106s to fund a single infrastructure project, were to be removed. Obligations would still need to be fairly and reasonably related to the development, but need not necessarily state within the obligation which specific project was to benefit.

The Infrastructure Funding Statements (IFS), to be published annually to facilitate transparency in terms of monies received from CIL and S106s, had been deferred from 2019; the date of the first IFS would be 31^st December 2020.  It would be the authority receiving the contribution, whether monitory or non-monitory, that would be responsible for preparing reports.  Whilst this would meant the Council would report on NHS receipts and the County Council would report on Highways and Education contributions, it was likely that the Council would report on all aspects in order to provide greater awareness of all projects benefitting. 

To cover the additional work of these reports, the legislation supported the imposition of monitoring fees.  With respect to S106s, this would be a sum that fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and would not exceed the authority’s estimate of its cost of monitoring the development over the lifetime of the planning obligations. 

The changes would ensure that monies obtained through S106s were reported promptly following effective monitoring, giving greater confidence that developments were adequately and appropriately mitigated for in terms of their impact on infrastructure. 

In response to questions, it was explained that education contributions would be likely to still go through the County Council for academies if they were registered with that authority.  The S106 should ideally identify which school the monies were to be diverted to. 

In the same way as planning conditions, an S106 would mitigate the impact of a new development in order to make it acceptable.  Additional requirements over and above the immediate area would have to be considered.  Supplementary planning documents were being developed to supplement the Local Plan policies to provide greater clarity.  Consideration of each S106 and any associated requirements would be reviewed as part of the consideration of individual developments.

Monitoring fees had been a contentious issue for some years, with authorities charging a flat rate fee.  The Legal Advisor added that fees would be negotiated, calculated and agreed.  However, if a developer did not agree, they could refuse any resulting extension of time and appeal. 

(A report by Mike Gildersleeves, Growth Manager)

The Growth Manager presented a report, which summarised recent decisions with respect to 8 appeals, 5 of which had been dismissed and 3 allowed.  The authority was well within its target requirements with respect to major and minor applications.

The Committee noted the report.

(A report by Mike Gildersleeves, Growth Manager)

Committee noted the report.

(A report by Mike Gildersleeves, Growth Manager)

Committee noted the report.