Agenda and draft minutes

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

Apologies for absence were tabled by Councillors Tom Ashton and frank Pickett with no substitute members.  Apologies were tabled by Councillor Peter Watson with Councillor Neill Hastie substituting.

With apologies tabled from both the elected Chairman and Vice Chairman, committee elected Councillor Michael Cooper to the role of Chairman for the meeting with Councillor Jonathon Noble accepting the role of Vice Chairman for the meeting.

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on the 15 October 2019 were signed by the Chairman with the agreement of the committee.

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

Standing declarations of interest were tabled for:

Councillors Alison Austin and Paul Skinner in their roles as Lincolnshire County Councillors

Councillors Peter Bedford and Michael Cooper as member of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee and for Councillor Jonathon Noble as a substitute member of that committee.

Councillors Peter Bedford and Michael Cooper in their respective roles as representatives of the Internal Drainage Board.

For all Councillors in respect of Mrs D Evans registered to speak on planning application B 19 0307 in her role as a fellow Councillor.

Councillor Alison Austin declared that her husband was a member of Boston Woods Trust which owned land adjacent to the application site for consideration under planning application B 19 0399 and as such she would absent from the meeting for that item.

Councillor Stephen Woodliffe declared he had receive objections from representatives from Boston Grammar School in respect of planning application B 19 0068 in respect of funding within a section 106 agreement and that he would absent from the meeting for that item as he was a Governor of the School.

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 5 December 2019

No public questions were tabled

It is recorded that Councillors Alison Austin and Stephen Woodliffe absented from the meeting at this part in the proceedings.

Proposed residential development consisting of 61 dwellings and construction of new vehicular access and associated work.

Land to the west of 90, 92 and 94 Fenside Road  Boston

Seagate Homes Ltd

Proposed residential development consisting of 61 dwellings and construction of new vehicular access and associated work.

Land to the west of 90, 92 and 84 Fenside Road  Boston Borough Council

Seagate Homes Ltd

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

Addressing the developer contributions for Education and Health, the Officer advised that the applicant had submitted a viability statement to try to demonstrate that the scheme would not be viable with such obligations and they would only be able to provide 8 affordable dwellings:  build costs, professional fees and site value being cited as supporting evidence.   The statement had been independently assessed and the conclusion of that had been that the scheme would be unviable if the 20% level of affordable was met alongside the provisions of the financial contributions.  The conclusion did indicate the scheme would be viable with a reduced overall ask.

Following detailed discussions, the applicant agreed to 8 of the 61 dwellings being allocated as affordable housing providing 13% against the agreed 20% with no financial contributions.  It was considered that whilst the scheme fell short in the offer of the affordable allocation, overall it would on balance appear acceptable and in line with the conclusion of the independent assessor.  Members were also advised that they submission of an ecological report was awaited, but subject to that being returned with no adverse comments, that may be minded to grant permission on the basis but with further conditions relating to ecology if required.

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

Advising committee we was the resident of no 88 Fenside Road, Mr Willians advised he was speaking on behalf of himself and neighbours at no 92 Fenside who had been unable to attend the meeting.

A number of concerns were noted about the application including the close proximity of proposed properties being so much closer than existing neighbouring dwellings and significant overshadowing which would result in a substantial loss of daylight hours especially in the summer months.  The lack of clarity in respect of fencing and boundary lines was also causing distress for residents who when questioning the provision had received little feedback. There appeared to have been mention of a gap being left between the properties to allow fencing to be erected but concerns were further raised that residents had not been approached to give permission to the builders to access their land to construct the fencing.  Residents had asked if it would be possible to have a brick wall between the properties which would benefit all parties; improve privacy and moreover be easier maintenance for those both side of the wall.  Referencing flood risk issues committee were advised that the area had been subject to flooding with residents regularly receiving text updates on potential flooding.  Mr Willians questioned what measures would be put in to place to mitigate future flooding, to avoid not only putting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 4 dwellings with new access and associated site works (revised plans, revised description).

118 Church Road   Boston   PE21 0LG

Mrs B Orrey

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 4 dwellings with new access and associate site works (revised plans, revised description)

118 Church Road  Boston  PE21 0LG

Mrs B Orrey

The Growth Manager presented the report to the committee confirming that one further letter of representation had been received following issue of the agenda, but that no new issues had been presented to those within the report.

Committee received a review of the history of the site confirming that application was a revised scheme following committee’s deferral of the application at its meeting on the 20^th August 2020:  that application had been tabled to address a previous refusal by committee.

Following the deferral various iterations of the application had been considered, the final one tabled providing a reduction in dwellings of 2 and changes to the fenestration.  The new proposal also included two car parking spaced per dwelling; enlarged front windows on the stairwells with the 2^nd floor en-suite windows being moved to the roof top.

Additional consultation was undertaken with neighbouring properties following the significant material amendments with similar comments to the previous consultation:  no further consultation was undertaken with the statutory consultees as all matters covered by them remained in the main unchanged.

Representation was received by the applicant Mrs Orrey and the Agent Mr Wicks which included the following comments:

All the points raised at the previous meeting had been taken seriously and addressed fully.  There had been a reduction in the number of dwellings to address the over development concern and issues relating to overlooking had been dealt with by relocation of windows.  The current site was an eyesore and whilst it was appreciated that the design of the application was subjective and a matter of personal taste, the application if granted, would rid the area of the boarded up dwelling on the site and present a much need provision of housing in the area.  Members were advised that evidence of comparable contemporary designs with similar roof concepts in historic sites had been identified in places like Harrogate and Bath where they are different from the remainder of the street scene.   Committee were asked to recognise that the applicant had taken their concerns on board and addressed all their previous concerns.

Whilst some concern was raised at the design in keeping with the vernacular of the area, the general committee deliberation was one of recognition that whilst design was indeed subjective, the reduction to 4 dwellings was an improvement and the application had addressed all the issues raised for the initial deferral.   Most members agreed that the re submission was a significant improvement and the development would enhance the existing street scene, whilst also providing much need housing whilst starting to modernise the area.

It was moved by Councillor Yvonne Stevens and second by Councillor Paul Skinner that the application be granted contrary to officer recommendation as the application notwithstanding the recommendation by Officers, the application be granted planning permission for the following reasons:

• It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Outline application for residential development (1 plot) with all matters (Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale) reserved for later approval (amended application form)

Rear of Gunby House  21 Sibsey Road  Boston  PE21 9QY

Mrs D Moore.

Outline application for residential development (1 plot) with all matters (Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale) reserved for approval (amended application form).

Rear of Gunby House  21 Sibsey Road  Boston  PE21 9QY

Mrs D Moore

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

Representation was received by the applicant which included:

The site itself had previously been used as a paddock and the whole site was in effect split into two sections:  the one for the development would be to the rear of the other, which would become the applicant’s garden.  The development at 25a Sibsey Road which was also one storey, had been granted so development to the rear of neighbouring houses has been established for all the houses who had the same size gardens.   There were existing buildings on the site with a stables and a garage having been in situ for many years and the new development would be no higher than those existing.  The development would not be seen from Sibsey Road and would not impact on the street scene, it would have its own garden amenity and its own access from Sibsey Road.   The removal of trees was with the consent of the neighbour and replacement trees on the site itself would be planted.  

A new development on Sibsey Road with 76 dwellings had been agreed and was certainly visual and overlooking from the existing houses on Sibsey Road.  They were not in keeping with the existing dwellings and had impacted significantly on the street scene:  they had no front or rear gardens; a significant number of trees had been removed from the site and the access had been agreed directly opposite the entrance to a hospital.

Whilst committee recognised the comments of the applicant in respect the questioning of the previous grant for 25a Sibsey Road, in general they agreed that the development was ‘back land’.  Additional concerns related to the general character of the area, the width of the plot and identified that although 25a had been granted it did not set a precedent.  Councillor Austin further identified a further element of refusal related to the driveway and the potential impact on the amenities of occupants of 19 and 21A Sibsey Road.

It was moved by Councillor Brian Rush and seconded by Councillor Alison Austin that the application be refused in line with officer recommendation.

The Growth Manager clarified the recommendation in relation to the potential impact on the amenities of occupants of 19 and 21a Sibsey Road and accepted this could be included within the reason for refusal if required.  Both Councillors agreed this.

Councillors Yvonne Stevens and Paul Skinner then identified that the 2017 appeal to the south was relevant and that the area was now seemingly ‘urban’ and this permission could be granted.

A negation motion was tabled by Councillor Paul Skinner and seconded by Councillor Yvonne Stevens.  This vote was taken and was defeated.

The original  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.