Venue: Online Meeting - view the meeting at www.mybostonuk.com/youtube
Contact: Karen Rist, Democratic Services Officer Phone: 01205 314226 E-mail: email@example.com
To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitutes (if any).
There were apologies for absence from Councillor Chelcei Trafford.
To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.
With the agreement of the Planning Committee Members, the Chairman signed the minutes of the previous Planning Committee meeting held on 28 July 2020.
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
To receive declarations of interests in respect of any item on the agenda.
Standing declarations of interest were recorded for Members of this Committee who were also Members of Lincolnshire County Council; Members of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee; and the Council’s Representatives on the Internal Drainage Boards
Councillor Noble declared an interest relating to planning application B/20/0384, as he might have taught one of the objectors 30 years previously, but confirmed it would make no difference to his deliberations.
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 10 December 2020.
Proposed two storey side extension
51 South Parade
Mr and Mrs Hunt
Full Planning Permission for a proposed two storey side extension
51 South Parade, Boston, Pe21 7PN
Mr & Mrs Hunt
The Assistant Director - Planning presented the details of the application, as set out in the report.
Since the publication of the agenda pack, further written representations had been received from the objector living in the bungalow next-door and from the applicant. Both letters had been circulated to Committee Members. The majority of the points raised had been addressed within the report.
The Assistant Director - Planning advised the Committee that he had visited the neighbouring bungalow the previous day, due to objector’s assertion that the Planning Officers’ layout plan was inaccurate. Planning Officers had accurately reported what was present and reflected the impact of the proposal on this space, which would be minor in nature in terms of loss of light and privacy, and not sufficient to warrant a refusal of planning permission on those grounds.
During debate, Members discussed the impact of the proposed side extension on the neighbouring bungalow, particularly in terms of loss of light, and concluded that it would not be sufficient to justify refusing planning permission. Members generally considered the design of the proposal to be satisfactory and in keeping with the character of the area.
One Member voiced an opposing view, referring to Planning Policies 2 and 3, asserting that the existing property did not fit in with the character of the area even before the extensions and that the loss of light would be unacceptable. Some Members agreed to an extent, and had sympathy for the objector, but still concluded that the impact of the proposal was insufficient to refuse planning permission and would have less impact than a fence or single storey extension that could be constructed under permitted development rights.
The Assistant Director - Planning noted the point raised during debate that the choice of materials for the side extension, which were subject to a condition for the planning authority’s approval before construction commenced, should be considered carefully by officers before that approval was given in order for it to fit in with the character of the area.
It was proposed by Councillor Yvonne Stevens and seconded by Councillor Peter Bedford that planning permission be granted as recommended by the Planning Officers.
Vote: 10 for, 1 against
RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED, as recommended by the Planning Officers, subject to the following conditions and reasons:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of four 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 08-Oct-2020 and in accordance with the associated plans referenced:
Drawing Number 02 Revision A – Proposed Plans; and
Drawing Number 03 Revision A – Proposed Elevations.
Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved details, in the interest ... view the full minutes text for item 83.
A report by the Assistant Director – Planning
The Committee considered a report, which set out the details of the results of appeal decisions received since the last report.
The Assistant Director - Planning referred to the ten decisions, eight of which had been dismissed by the Inspector, which related to a range of different proposals and application types. In addition, the Council had two cost claims put forward during that period both of which were defended by the Council and both were dismissed by the Inspector.
Overall, the Council’s appeals performance was within national requirements. However, as with all appeals, there were learning outcomes.
The Assistant Director - Planning stressed that these decisions did not set a precedent for future consideration. One decision highlighted the point, often reiterated, that the Local Plan, although adopted, was the starting point, not a rulebook, and applications had to be considered in the context of what the plan as a whole was trying to achieve. Other factors still came into the planning balance, such as the MPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
The Chairman commented that the decisions were a vote of confidence for the work of the planning authority, the planning department and the Committee, particularly as neither of the applications for costs were awarded, a benchmark as to whether decisions were reasonable. The Assistant Director - Planning was asked to pass on the Committee’s congratulations to the team.