Agenda and draft minutes

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

Apologies were tabled for Councillor Chelcei Trafford.  No substitute member.

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

The committee agreed the minutes of the previous planning committee meeting held on the 9 March 2021

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

Standing declarations of interest were tabled within the minutes for all members of the committee who were also:

Members of Lincolnshire County Council

Members of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee

Representatives of the Internal Drainage Boards.

Referencing planning application B 21 0091 the following three committee members re-affirmed their position as a representative of the Black Sluice Internal Drainage Board, each stating individually that their position did not prejudice their determination of the application which they would do with an open mind:  Councillors Tom Ashton, Peter Bedford and Frank Pickett.

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 22 April 2021.

No public questions

Proposed change of use of existing agricultural building to residential dwelling

Red House Farm, Langrick Road, Brothertoft, Boston, PE20 3SW

H Robinson & Son, C/O Origin Design Studio

Proposed change of use of existing agricultural building to residential

dwelling                               

Red House Farm, Langrick Road, Brothertoft, Boston, PE20 3SW

H Robinson & Son, C/O Origin Design Studio

The Planning Officer presented the report to the committee with an overview of the application and a number of supporting slides providing additional information in respect of the location, together with floor plans identifying increased sizing and elevations of the proposed dwelling along with indicative plans of the build materials.

Addressing the key issues for the recommendation to refuse the application, the Planning Officer referred members to Policy 23 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan and demonstrated how the proposals had failed to meet the requirements of said policy. The application had failed to establish whether the building was structurally sound and capable of conversion without needing significant extension, alteration and rebuilding.   There was no justification for the building’s retention, as it did not contribute to the character of the landscape nor was there any architectural merit in relation to the history of the area.  The building was not listed and a significant part of the roof was missing.

The siting, scale and materials proposed would detract from the character and appearance of the existing area.  The building would double in size with the internal floor space increasing by 4 times.  

Therefore the result would be an over-intensive, prominent, and unsympathetic form of development that was contrary to the established spatial and visual characteristics of the area and failed to accord with Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Furthermore insufficient information had been provided to demonstrate how the sequential and exceptions tests relating to Flood Risk had been passed, as whilst the proposal was for the conversion of a building, the principle of the conversion had been proven to be unacceptable, with only part of the exception test having been satisfied. The proposal, therefore, failed to accord with Policy 2 (part  7), Policy 4 (part 1), and Policy 31 (part 2) of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2011-2036) and Section 14 ‘Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change’ of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

Representation was received by the applicant Mr Robinson which included:

Mr Robinson confirmed he had been resident at the application site for many years, his family had farmed at Brothertoft for 100 years and he and his wife wished to continue to live on the site.

He had been a Parish Councillor and a member of the Black Sluice Drainage Board for a long time demonstrating that he had actively served the local community.

The main reason for submitting the application was to provide suitable accomodation for carers for his wife who, following serious illnes, required 24-hour live-in carers.  The application, which Mr Robinson stressed was for three bedrooms and not four, included a bedroom for such support carers.  The existing footprint was clearly defined and whilst some barns had been subject to damage, on a previous  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

Application for approval of conditions 11 (foul water), 12 (surface water), 14 (finished floor level), 16 (acoustic bund details), 17 (construction management plan) and 18 (geographical survey) attached to planning permission B/16/0380 (Outline application for the erection of up to 215 dwellings with all matters (scale, layout, landscaping, appearance) except access reserved with public open space and drainage infrastructure)

Land at Middlegate Road, Frampton, Boston, PE20 1BX

Charlotte Dew, Larkfleet Homes

Condition Discharge

Application for approval of conditions 11 (foul water), 12 (surface water), 14 (finished floor level), 16 (acoustic bund details), 17 (construction management plan) and 18 (geographical survey) attached to planning permission B/16/0380 (Outline application for the erection of up to 215 dwellings with all matters (scale, layout, landscaping, appearance) except access reserved with public open space and drainage infrastructure)   

Land at Middlegate Road, Frampton, Boston, PE20 1BX

Larkfleet Homes

Presenting the report the Assistant Director – Planning confirmed that it was tabled as when resolving to grant reserved matters in November 2018, committee members had requested that the drainage conditions be tabled back through committee once the final solutions had been defined. 

For clarity of their determination, members were advised that the overall compliance for the site was in two parts with the first relating to conditions attached to the outline application whilst the second related to matters attached to the reserve matters which were subject to a separate discharge request detailed in the report. 

Each request sought to cover a number of conditions but it was only the conditions relating to drainage, which were subject to the planning committee’s determination.  Condition 11 foul water and condition 12 surface water were the only two for consideration and both had been attached to the outline consent that had been agreed by the Inspector on appeal.

Members were reminded that in respect of drainage, the planning committee was not a statutory undertaker and the level of detail required was different to that considered by the statutory authority.

The applicant needed to achieve compliance with overlapping technical and legislative requirements with the statutory bodies who took a far more granular view of the proposal.   Should committee agree the application today, but the statutory bodies find it non-compliant thereafter, then the applicant would be required to return to committee with any changes required.

A visual presentation followed identifying the key points on the site for collection and distribution of both types of drainage.  The swales would run alongside a number of the main internal routes on the eastern and southern boundaries.  The attenuation ponds would be located at the centre of the site, to the east of the main access and would bind the existing watercourse and hold c4300m3.  They would be connected to a wider surface water system which would act as a holding point for the water, with the outfall form them being restricted by hydro-brakes.   Perimeter land drains with a 300mm diameter to ensure a robust spare flow capacity, were also proposed along the southern and western boundaries and would be shared with properties on Middlegate Road and seek to capture excess run-off from those proposed properties. 

No public representation was received in respect of this item.

Committee deliberation followed which included:

Concerns were raised in respect of ongoing drainage issues and members voiced their agreement that whilst they appreciated the proposals would not resolve existing issues, they were in agreement that they must not exacerbate them.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

Residential development consisting of 139 dwellings, including associated roads, public open space and drainage infrastructure

Land off London Road, Kirton, Boston, PE20 1JE

Ashwood Homes

Residential development consisting of 139 dwellings, including  associated roads, public open space and drainage infrastructure

Land off London Road, Kirton, Boston, PE20 1JE

Ashwood Homes

Agent:    Mrs Natalie Wallinger, NKW Design Ltd

Prior to presentation of the report members were advised of an error on page 58 of the report under 5.7.  Scenario 4 should read an education contribution of £88,000 and not the £430,531 as within the paper.

The Assistant Director – Planning presented the report and confirmed it was tabled to committee due to the scale of the development and the specific issues raised in respect of the changes presented regarding the affordable housing allocation and section 106 education contribution, against those granted within the initial application which committee had granted in September 2019. 

The applicant had identified the need for a viability assessment to address an issue and it was their right to come back to committee to look to address the viability they had identified. 

A visual overview of the previous scheme which committee had deemed acceptable identified phase 1 of the scheme already developed and phase 3 and phase 4. The timeline approved in 2019 had been subject to a legal agreement. The impact of Covid had resulted in a variety of raised costs, including abnormal costs for pumping on the site and increased slab levels. All costs had been based on accurate findings of the original scheme. The developers came forward in 2020 with a full viability report on an open book basis, looking at cost and profit, and the section 106 contributions. The independently assessed viability assessment had found the original scheme not viable.  Thereafter ongoing negotiations had taken place and whilst not all matters had been agreed, the final offer was tabled before committee to see if it was agreeable.

The Council’s own viability consultant had identified four scenarios and scenario 2 was the one the applicants had put forward.  It provided 9 affordable houses with the split agreed with the housing manager to meet the Council’s needs.  The education contribution would remain the same as first agreed. The applicants had a proven track record across the wider borough and phase 1 of this development had been completed. Should permission be granted amendments would be made to condition 1 of the original conditions to commence within 2 years with condition 2 also requiring an amendment to include the new layout and amended affordable allocation.

No public representation was received in respect of this application.

Committee deliberation followed which included:

It is recorded that Councillor Brian Rush sought a point of legal advice at this time in the meeting.  Councillor Rush advised that he was a co-owner with his wife of a hair salon in Kirton and asked if he needed to declare a percuniary interest in the item.

The Legal Officer advised that he did not need to do so but ultimately it was Councillor Rush’s decision.

Councillor Rush stated he would not declare an interest but that would remain and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.