Agenda and draft minutes

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

No apologies for absence were received.

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

The minutes of the Committee’s last meeting, held on 23^rd July 2019, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, with the amendment to show that Councillor Rush was a substitute Member of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee.

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

Standing declarations of interest were noted for :

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

Councillors Tom Ashton, Michael Cooper and Neill Hastie 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 Planning Application B/19/0068 Councillor Yvonne Stevens declared that she had viewed the site 15 years previously to consider purchasing the land.

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 15^th August 2019.

No public questions submitted for this meeting.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of terrace block of 5 three storey dwellings with new access and associated site works.

118 Church Road  Boston  PE21 0LG

Mrs B Orrey

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of terrace block of 5 three storey dwellings with new access and associated site works.

118 Church Road  Boston  PE21 0LG

Mrs B Orrey

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and advised Members that the visuals and letter from the applicant received after publication of the agenda pack, which Members confirmed they had received, were not a true reflection of the application and that the application as it was presented at the meeting that the Committee had to consider. 

The following representations, received following publication of the agenda pack, were reported to the meeting:

·         A letter of objection giving the grounds as insufficient parking in an overpopulated area and the danger to cyclists.

·         8 letters of support on the grounds that the proposal would improve the town; the design would tie together existing styles; development would remove an eyesore and stop trouble taking place; and approval of the contemporary design.

Mr J Cartwright then addressed the Committee and spoke in objection to the proposals on the following grounds:

·         Loss of privacy and sunlight to neighbours, whom he had discussed the proposals with, as the block would dominate neighbouring properties, especially the bungalows and properties on Windsor Close;

·         The site was too small and the proposed dwellings would have a negative impact, as they would be out of character in an area where none had flat roofs, all being two-storey with gable roofs, and permission for the site next door had been limited to 2-storey. 

·         Tandem parking was not ideal, particularly at this point where there was a bend on a busy road.

·         There was no objection to the redevelopment of the site, but the quality of this design would lower the standards of the area.

The applicant, Mrs B Orrey, then addressed the Committee and described her vision of the provision of low carbon properties with affordable housing.  This site had once been used as commercial premises and permission had been granted previously for a house in multiple occupation (HMO) to house nine people.  The site was an eyesore and security fencing had had to be erected.  The proposed dwellings were modern and would appeal to new buyers and encourage carbon neutral travel, with provision of electric vehicle charging points, bicycle stores and ability to walk to local facilities. 

Mrs Orrey asserted that everything had been done in line with the Committee’s wishes, including the use of traditional materials, alteration of the roof pitch and frames, and local traders and suppliers had been used.  The proposal would encourage more new ideas and would be a focal point in the same way as the new college building. 

The applicant’s agent, Mr C Wicks, shared the speaking time with the applicant and quoted views previously expressed by a Planning Officer dealing with the application, who had confirmed that the separation distances and the mass and scale of the proposals were acceptable, pointing out that there were ten terrace dwellings nearby of a greater width.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Erection of 3 no. three storey apartment blocks consisting of 55 no. flats including some amenity facilities, following demolition of existing public house.

Former New Castle Inn and adjoining land on Lister Way  36 Fydell Street  Boston  PE21 8LF

Dhedhi Alrahim Trust.

Erection of 3 no. three storey apartment blocks consisting of 55 no. flats including some amenity facilities, following demolition of existing public house.

Former New Castle Inn and adjoining land on Lister Way 36 Fydell Street  Boston  PE21 8LF

Dhedhi, Alrahmin Trust

The Growth Manager presented the application and reported the 10 additional representations had been received since the publication of the agenda pack, objecting to the lack of car parking in the area and the ‘zero parking’ proposal within the application.

The applicant’s agent, Mr C Lilley, addressed the Committee saying this was a substantial vacant site that had been a long-standing eyesore.  It was in a perfect location for all amenities and transport links.  The high quality design, including landscaping and a private courtyard, would provide living accommodation of exceptional quality along with a number of affordable homes and a section 106 contribution, so adding to the rejuvenation of Boston. 

Mr Lilley stated that the site was in a highly accessible part of Boston.  No parking was proposed so as not to impede traffic flow; there would not be the conflict that a limited number of parking spaces could cause and there would be no junctions needed to exit the site.  The existing access would have removable bollards for refuse collection and other vehicles and they would be able to turn on the site without compromising highway safety.  Also, storage for scooters and cycles would be provided.  The Highway Authority fully supported the proposal. 

Councillor Paul Goodale, speaking as the Local Ward Member, considered the design and plan acceptable, but could not accept the proposal for zero parking provision, as the residents would certainly have cars and there was a significant level of illegal parking in the area already.  Councillor Goodale was also concerned about the adverse impact on the amenity of the area in terms of the overshadowing of neighbouring residential properties. 

During debate, other Members raised concerns regarding the size and scale of the proposal and the adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity, particularly overshadowing of the houses opposite, as well as concerns regarding inadequate bin storage and the flood risk sequential test not having been met. 

In particular, Members considered that, due to the ‘zero’ provision of parking on the site, the proposal would lead to a significant adverse impact on traffic congestion in an area already congested, as it was inevitable that the residents of the 55 proposed units would own cars. 

Members also commented on the scale of the development and the potential impact on the character of the area in relation to visual intrusion. References to the proposals being contrary to policies 2 and 3 of the Development Plan were made.

Some Members commented that the design was of good quality and the accommodation was much needed; that the scale of the proposal was acceptable and that parking was the only issue, with other developments recently approved having been required to provide parking spaces.  Other Members considered that zero provision of parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

A report by the Growth Manager.

B 18 0272.  Burnham Lane and Marsh Lane  Skeldyke  Kirton  Boston

B 18 0434.  Land off Puttock Gate  Fosdyke  Boston

A Report by the Growth Manager in respect of planning applications:

·         B/18/0272  Burnham Lane and Marsh Lane Skeldyke Kirton Boston

·         B/18/0434  Land at Puttock Gate  Fosdyke  Boston

Members noted that the Planning Inspector had allowed the appeal in respect of B/18/0434 despite the application site being outside

A standing report by the Growth Manager

A standing report by the Growth Manager.  Members agreed that this item was no longer required to be published as part of the agenda, as the information was already published and made available to Members each week.

A standing report by the Growth Manager

A standing report by the Growth Manager.  Members agreed that this item was no longer required to be published as part of the agenda, as the information was already published and made available to Members each week.