Agenda and minutes

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

No apologies for absence were tabled

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

With the agreement of the committee members the Chairman signed the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 14 January 2020

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

Standing declarations of interest are tabled within these minutes for:

Councillors Tom Ashton, Alison Austin and Paul Skinner in their respective roles as Lincolnshire County Councillors.

Councillors Tom Ashton, Alison Austin and Peter Bedford in their respective roles as members of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee and Councillor Jonathan Noble in his role as a substitute member of the committee.

Councillors Tom Ashton, Peter Bedford and Frank Pickett in their respective roles as members of the Internal Drainage Boards.

No further declarations of interest were tabled.

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 6^th February 2020.

No pubic questions were tabled.

At this point in the proceedings, the Chairman welcomed Councillor Michael Cooper back onto the committee.

Erection of 4 dwellings and associated access     

Land at Park Lane, Freiston, Boston

Greenfinch Homes

Erection of 4 dwellings and associated access.

Land at Park Lane  Freiston  Boston Borough Council

Greenfinch Homes

The Senior planning officer presented the report to committee and confirmed there had been no additional information received in respect of the application following publication on the agenda.  The senior planning officer provided a brief overview of the history of site and members advised that in November 2016 an outline consent for 5 dwellings on the site, had been allowed on appeal, establishing the principle of housing on the site, and then in February 2019 the erection of two bungalows had been approved on the site.  The committee were also advised that the separation distance between the gable-end of the property that would face the existing bungalow would be approximately 22 metres and the overall ridge height would be 7.8m.   Lincolnshire County Council had raised no concern and the car parking provision was compliant with the local plan with two spaces per dwelling. 

Concerns noted in respect of refuse disposal had been had been addressed under condition 6 of the report and objections submitted in respect of the loss of trees / damage to trees during development had been addressed under condition 5 of the report.

Representation was received in objection to the application by Ms. Sam Williams which included:

Confirming that her property was the existing bungalow, on the site that was closest to the proposed development, Ms. Williams questioned the ridge height of the proposed dwellings as being similar to that of her own property.  She advised she had measured her own property to the flat roof and it measured 2.7 metres and to the ridge height which was 5.8m, 2 metres shorter than the proposed houses:  Ms. Williams further questioned the distance between the nearest property and her own a being 22m.  Further concern noted the changing number of proposed doors and windows to the proposed dwellings, which appeared to have increased from the original application.  Committee were further asked to recognise that the surrounding properties were bungalows and that semi-detached houses would be out of character.  Referencing the changes in the number of dwellings, from the first application, members were asked to agree the site would be over-development, which would impact on existing residents and on the leisure facilities, which were established beside it.  Ms. Williams further questioned the need for the 4 houses, stating that there was already 12 empty properties for sale within the village, along with significant development in the neighbouring village of Butterwick with around 100 new homes, having already been built.

Representation was receive by the Chairman of Freiston Parish Council, Councillor Marshall which included:

Stating that the Parish Council wanted to protect the well-used playing field, Councillor Marshall voiced concern at the increase in development from the original 5 dwellings to the possible 9 should the application be granted and also at the lack of any funding the development would contribute to the village amenities including the Danny Flear Centre and the car  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

A report by the Growth Manager in respect of:

B/18/0456 Blue Bungalow, Pode Lane, Old Leake, Boston, Pe22 9NB

B/19/0026 The Old Smithy, Highgate, Leverton, Boston, PE22 0AJ

Blue Bungalow  Pode Lane   Old Leake  Boston  PE22 9NB

The Growth Manager presented the report to the committee confirming that the Inspector, who had taken into consideration the changes in policy since the refusal, had allowed the appeal.   The Growth Manager confirmed that whilst it was disappointing to lose the appeal, the dismissal appeal from July 2019 had clearly indicated that there was potential revised scheme to come forward.

The Inspector had recognised the nature of the application in that it was outline only with all matters reserved, which would allow final determination of matters including layout and scale by committee.  The Inspector had noted that the edge of settlement nature of the site was changing in its density and its form, and the indicative plan was comparable to that at the east of the site.  In conclusion, the Inspector had decided the scheme to be an improvement on the previous submission for 6 units and that subject to conditions the proposal would comply with policies 2 and 3 of the SELLP.  On a positive note the Inspector had recognised Boston now had a five year land supply

The Old Smithy  Highgate  Leverton  Boston  PE22 0AJ:

The Growth Manager presented the report to the committee confirming that the Inspector who had agreed that the building did not appear to have been used solely for agricultural purposes had dismissed the appeal and with no evidence, to the contrary it did not comply with Class Q.  Referencing the concerns noted by committee in respect of the extent of the curtilage, the Inspector had stated that had the scheme met all other requirements the issue could have been defined within the final decision:  as it had not, then no further consideration was given and the conclusion was the scheme was not permitted development. 

Noting his role as the Ward Member for Old Leake the Chairman recognised the decision of the officers in making the decision table the second application on Blue Bungalow

Committee noted the report.