Agenda and minutes

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

There were apologies for absence from Councillors Colin Brotherton and Maureen Dennis.  Councillor Mike Brookes was serving as a substitute Member for Councillor Brotherton.

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting, held on 8 December 2015.

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 8^th December 2015 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

A Member requested a point of clarification with respect to a Ward Member addressing the Committee.  The Monitoring Officer explained that when Members addressed the Committee in this role they were not bound by considerations of planning merit; rather, they expressed the opinion of their residents and their own opinion. 

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

Councillors Sue Ransome and Claire Rylott declared that they had been present at the parish council meeting when application B/15/0391 had been considered, but they had taken no part in the deliberations.

Councillor Sue Ransome declared that one of the members of the public objecting to application B/15/0437 was a personal friend and she would leave the meeting before the Committee considered this application.

Councillor Brian Rush declared that he knew one of the objectors from a considerable length of time ago and this did not constitute an interest.

Proposal: Application for Outline Planning Permission for residential development (105 dwellings) including layout and access with all other matters reserved for later approval

Location: Mani Firs, London Road, Kirton, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE20 1JE

Applicant: Mr Adam Pulman

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report.  No additional information was reported.

There were no members of the public registered to speak on this application.

It was proposed by Councillor Jonathan Noble and seconded by Councillor Alison Austin that outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed in the report, as recommended by the Planning Officers. 

Vote: Unanimous

1.            Approval of the details of appearance, landscaping, and scale (hereinafter called 'the reserved matters') shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason:        This is an outline application only and such details must be approved before development commences in order to comply with the objectives of Local Plan policies G1 and H3 and required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.            Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3.            The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

Reason:        Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

4.            No development shall commence above ground on the buildings hereby approved until details of an Affordable Housing Plan have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority that identifies how 20% of the total housing units shall be provided and managed to supply affordable housing.

§  the identity and location of the affordable housing plots,

§  the arrangements for the transfer of affordable housing to an identified affordable housing provider,

§  the arrangements to ensure that such provision is affordable for both first and subsequent occupiers in perpetuity of the affordable housing,

§  the occupancy criteria to be used for determining the identity of occupiers of

the affordable housing and the means by which such occupancy criteria shall be enforced,

§ the timing of the construction of the affordable housing and its phasing in relation to the occupancy of the market housing

Reason:        To ensure the provision of affordable housing and to remain so in perpetuity to accord with the applicants stated intentions, and to accord with the objectives of Adopted Affordable Housing Policy - November 2006 ( Non statutory Interim Policy).

5.            The detailed layout shall incorporate an area or areas of public amenity open space/children's play area comprising not less than 7.5% of the gross site area which maximises as far as possible  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Proposal: Application for Full Planning Permission for change of use from dwelling (C3) to House in Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis)

Location: 38, Tower Road, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 9AD

Applicant: Mr S L Epton

[Councillor Sue Ransome left the room for the entire deliberation and vote on this application.]

The Development Control Manager presented the report on this application.  No additional information was reported.

The applicant’s agent, addressing the Committee, asserted that the objections raised to the application were non-material and made the following points:

·         Three other applications to change use of dwellings to houses in multiple occupation (HMOs)for 5, 9 and 14 people had been approved in the last two years, two with no parking provision. 

·         The area was suitable for HMOs; the Government encouraged diversity in the urban environment and it was preferable for them to be regulated; and the nature of the occupants was not material.

·         There was no evidence of over-supply of HMOs causing harm in the area.

·         There would be 4 bedrooms in the property and parking would not be significant, as it would be occupied by couples.  This was a highly sustainable location; cars were not essential. 

·         Storage for wheeled bins was a normal part of the development and occupants would return bins to storage after emptying.  There was no evidence of smell.

·         There was no evidence that the proposal would generate crime.

·         The proposal had been approved by Building Control; the Housing Officer deemed it acceptable and the Fire Officer had no objections to it.

·         A management plan was not necessary and was not a planning consideration.

·         With respect to room sizes, this had been subject to rigorous scrutiny by the Housing Officer.

·         No structural survey was necessary; the application complied with Building Control regulations. 

A local Ward Member then addressed the Committee on behalf of residents of Tower Road who were extremely concerned about the proposal.  The Member referred to Policy G1, which stated that permission would only be granted for development that would not substantially harm the amenities of nearby residents or the general character of the area, and asserted that the nature, scale, density, appearance and related transport would all cause substantial harm to the residents and character of the area.  The area was pleasant and safe, but an area declined when an HMO was present and property prices could decline, so harming residents financially. 

It was proposed by Councillor Jonathan Noble and seconded by Councillor Anton Dani that planning permission be refused in accordance with Policies H8 and G1, on the grounds that the amenity of neighbouring properties would be substantially harmed visually, and in terms of noise and the general character of the area, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraphs 186-187 on the grounds that it would seriously affect the social and environmental conditions in the area.  When put to the vote, this proposal was lost.

It was then proposed by Councillor Mike Brookes and seconded by Councillor Stephen Woodliffe that planning permission be granted as recommended  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Proposal: Application for Outline Planning Permission with some matters reserved (consideration given to access)  for residential development (100 dwellings)

Location: Land off Punchbowl Lane, Boston, Lincolnshire

Applicant:Mr Mark Mann, Larkfleet Homes

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and advised the Committee that 7 further representations had been received after the publication of the agenda papers, 3 being from residents in The Graylings, 1 from Langrick Road, 1 from Punchbowl Lane and one e-mail from an unknown address.

In summary, the representations objected to the application on the grounds of fire risk, drainage, increase in crime, more social housing leading to noise and violence, the footpath, that the land should remain agricultural, the impact on services and facilities, as well as other non-material objections.

In addition to the conditions listed in the report, the Senior Planning Officer recommended that the element relating to the footpath link be removed from the proposal because it was not within the applicant’s control.

The Senior Planning Officer also reported that Lincolnshire County Council had specified that the education contribution requested related to Boston West Primary School, in order to add a classroom, and Haven High Academy, to extend the dining room; therefore, the request still needed to be considered to see how it complied with the CIL Regulations. 

The Committee received the following representations from members of the public registered to speak.

A resident of The Graylings addressed the Committee in objection to the application on the following grounds. 

·         The new emerging local plan should be given little or no weight, having only just gone out for consultation; if given any weight, the application did not comply with it in respect of the developer contribution or affordable housing policies. 

·         The site was outside the settlement boundary in the current local plan and there had been no changes since to make the site sustainable or warrant its inclusion within the boundary. 

·         The development was not sustainable in accordance with the NPPF due to the adverse effect of the increase in traffic; the impact on schools; the lack of public transport; lack of space to sustain adequate parking for the number of residents. 

·         Also, the site was within a flood risk zone; it would adversely impact on views from public woodland and the river footpath; the proposed location of the open space was unsuitable; there were no off-site recreation or flood mitigation contributions; the level of affordable housing was 10% below what it should be and no starter homes were proposed. 

·         The lack of a 5-year land supply did not mean the application could not be refused. 

The planning director from Larkfleet Homes was then invited to address the Committee.  He advised the Committee that he was a chartered town planner and Larkfleet Homes was a local house builder, which had won a number of awards and used new sustainability techniques and renewable energy.  Although small, they had invested significantly in sustainability and provided attractive, quality properties, including affordable and starter homes, in sustainable locations.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To note the details of a Planning Inquiry opening on 2^nd February 2016 in the Municipal Buildings to hear the appeal by Persimmon Homes East Midlands against the Council’s refusal in October 2014 of an outline application for sixty homes at land off Monarchs Road, Sutterton (ref: B/14/0176).

The Development Control Manager asked the Committee to note the details of a Planning Inquiry opening on 2^nd February 2016 in the Municipal Buildings to hear the appeal by Persimmon Homes East Midlands against the Council’s refusal in October 2014 of an outline application for sixty homes at land off Monarchs Road, Sutterton (ref: B/14/0176).

The Committee requested that a session be arranged to make sure that when the Decision was released, the Committee had the opportunity to consider it in detail to see if there were any points it might wish to take forward from it.

In any event, the Development Control Manager confirmed that after the Openings, an email would let Members know of the likely timetable for the Inquiry so that they might view particular parts of the proceedings. Planning Committee on 9 February 2016 would also have the opportunity to ask any question about what was observed during the proceedings.

Delegated decision list for the period 23/11/2015 to 21/12/2015 – for noting

The delegated decision list for 23 November to 21 December 2015 was noted.