Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Councillor Maureen Dennis with Councillor Michael Brookes substituting.  Apologies were received from Councillor David Brown with no substitute member.

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting, held on 24^th May 2016.  [NB: The confidential minute does not appear in the public version of this agenda]

The minutes of the planning committee meeting held on the 24^th May 2016 were agreed by the committee and signed off by the Chairman.

The Monitoring Officer advised that should the committee need to discuss the exempt minute then the meeting would need to move into exempt measures.

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

Councillor Jonathan Noble declared an interest in planning application B 16 0092 in that the architect was known to him but he had no pre disposition or pre determination in this matter.

Councillor Yvonne Stevens declared an interest in planning application B 16 0132 in that the applicant was known to her but she had no pre determination and would decide the application on the report provided.

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.

No public questions were tabled

Prior to moving into part two of the agenda the Monitoring Officer provided a point of information:

An official planning committee site visit had been held at 1000 hours on the morning of the meeting at the location of planning application B 16 0092.  In line with the directive of the Planning Code of Conduct only committee members who attend a site visit may determine it at the committee meeting.  With the exception of Councillors Anton Dani and Paul Skinner all members in attendance at the meeting had been in attendance at the official site visit.  As such neither Councillor Dani nor Councillor Skinner would deliberate or determine the application.

Erection of a timber framed tractor/machinery store in the grounds of a listed building

The Priory, Church End Road, Freiston, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE22 0LQ

Mr & Mrs Michael Pocklington

Proposal:       Erection of a timber framed tractor / machinery store in 

                        the grounds.

Site:                The Priory  Church End Road  Freiston  Boston

Applicant:      Mr and Mrs Michael Pocklington

Prior to receiving the presentation the Monitoring Officer made a point of procedural information in respect of the site visit during which a few members had inadvertently sought information direct from the applicant.  That point of information would be covered during the officers’ presentation to ensure all members were aware of what was discussed during any conversations including the applicant.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and confirmed the discussion which had taken place as advised by the Monitoring Officer was

that no external brickwork was shown on the drawings and there would be no need for any condition on the brickwork.

Updates were provided following issue of the agenda and committee were advised that having held numerous discussions with Heritage Lincolnshire the decision had been made to add a further condition to the application for an Archaeological watching brief.

Furthermore Historic England had been fully notified of the application as a precaution and no response from them to the application had been received.

Representation was received in objection to the application which included:

Speaking as both a member of Freiston Parish Council and as the Parochial Church Secretary for St. James Church, the objector advised that the Parish Council did not object to building on this site but objected to the location of the proposed building.  It was concerned about the impact the new building would have on the setting of the existing cluster of buildings on the site.  The Priory was a II* listed building; the church I* listed and the stable block II* listed.  It was a very rich cluster of nationally important buildings.

The PCC had undertaken an archaeological exploration on the site which had returned time line of history back to both Roman and Anglo Saxon Times.  Furthermore the PCC had commissioned an independent expert to look at the site.  The quality of the site would be scheduled and the PCC would be putting that forward in due course with the scheduling being from the front of the Church to the rear of the Priory.

The Parish were very sensitive to development of the site with the possible uncontrolled future development on the site whereby a precedent could be set for future development.  Finally concern in respect of flooding was noted in that the Church was already on the Heritage England flood risk register.

Prior to moving to the vote it was requested that it be noted that many of the members had acknowledged the benefit of a site visit on this occasion.

It was moved by Councillor Brian Rush and seconded by Councillor Jonathan Noble that that application be granted in line with officer recommendation and subject to the additional condition of an Archeolocial watching brief.

Vote:       10 in favour.     0 against.     2 abstention

RESOLVED:   That the application be granted in line with officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Application for residential development of 22no. dwellings and 2no.garages including the part demolition of the existing Public House to form new 5.0m wide public road and associated works (revised description)

Land rear of the White Hart Public House, 31 Church Road, Old Leake, Lincolnshire, PE22 9NS

Mr Mark Perkins, Taylor Pearson Construction Ltd

Proposal:     Application for residential development of 22no. Dwellings and) 2no.garages including the part demolition of the existing Public House to form new 5.0m wide public wide road and associated works (revised description

Location:      Land rear of the White Hart Public House   31 Church Road  Old Leake  Boston  Lincolnshire.

Applicant:      Mr Mark Perkins

The Development Control Manager presented the report confirming that the application had been deferred to enable the applicant to look at the density of the site with a view to reducing the number of dwellings and increasing the number of parking spaces.  The revised application was now for 22 dwellings with 45 car parking spaces on site as against the previous application for 23 dwellings and 30 on site car parking.

Update information following issuing of the agenda was confirmed as per point 4.2 of the report which advised that the Co-Op had relocated elsewhere in Old Leake.

Highways had been consulted in respect of the new layout which they had agreed was acceptable subject to recommendations.  Highways has noted that as there are no national or local car parking standards it would be difficult to resist the application with the ratio of 2:1 on site parking.  Drainage issues would be dealt with through the design scheme and any riparian drain would be subject to maintenance.

A communication from the Parish Council dated 14^th June refers to other complaints received and confirms it is in complete agreement with the points raised by objectors with their main concern being the entrance / exit stating the splay to be too narrow, it also stated that 47 car parking spaces would be needed.   Further concerns identified the impact of local schools, the medical centre and electricity all of which should be considered.

Reference was made to the number of further objections received from The Chestnuts residence on the 9^th / 11^th / 13^th and 14^th of June along with a letter received on the 20^th June. Briefly summarising the contents of the representation the Development Control Manager advised that comments had included the Council had not sought further objections from residents who had been denied the opportunity to comment as a 21 day consultation period had not been provided.  Reference to the Human Rights Act had been noted and also a comment that the council was pushing on with drawings and was biased. Furthermore the Council was missing things out as it had referenced noise from actual construction activity but failed to mention day to day noise.

Committee were advised that a 13 page letter had been submitted from the Chestnuts to the Chief Executive; the Local Member of Parliament and the Council’s Solicitor.  The Solicitor had responded in detail.

The resident of The Chestnuts had furthermore submitted photographs requesting they be displayed within the officer presentation:  confirmation was given that copies of the photographs were already within the Ward Councillor’s submission on each member’s placements for consideration at a later stage of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Change of use from residential (class c3) to House in Multiple Occupation (HMO)

63, Norfolk Street, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 6PE

Mr Krzysztof Kruszelnicki

Proposal:          Change of use to HMO

Location:          63 Norfolk Street  Boston

Applicant:         Mr Kruszelnicki

The Development Control Manager presented the report and confirmed one update to the report tabled in that a further letter had been received in objection to the application from no.67 Norfolk Street citing concerns in respect that access will be more difficult to get to their property due to waste bins and increased parking.

Representation was received in objection to the application which included:

Speaking on behalf of some of the local residents, the objector voiced their support of the officers’ recommendation to refuse the application. The objector advised he had submitted sound and robust reasons for refusal to the officers which included objectivity and tests of reasonableness.   The proposed change from a family home to a HMO was not acceptable and the objector stated he had clear evidence of probability of things which are certain to happen without proof, including anti social behaviour.  The change of use to a five roomed multi occupancy dwelling would change the dynamics of the property and would change the dynamic of the local environment around the property reducing the amenities for local families.

It was moved by Councillor Alison Austin and seconded by Councillor Colin Brotherton that the application be refused in line with officer recommendation for the reasons given therein.

Councillor Brian Rush asked that it be recorded he realised that a relative of his had resided in the property and as such he would withdraw from determining the application and abstain from voting.

Vote:       11 in favour.          0 against.           1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  That the committee  refuse the application for the following    

                       reason:

The proposed change of use, having regard to the site’s close relationship with neighbouring properties and the layout and density of the area would by virtue of overlooking, loss of privacy and general noise disturbance, substantially impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents – particularly No 69 Norfolk Street. Given the proposed layout and the limited external amenity space that will be provided following the rear extension to the property, the resultant development will intensify multiple activities and pedestrian traffic within the area, especially along the shared driveway and entranceway in order to gain access to the subject building. This will further erode the neighbours’ amenities and will provide a poor living environment for both future occupiers of the development and the neighbouring residents, contrary to saved Local Plan Policies H8 and G1.

Erection of 4 houses to be used as houses in multiple occupation (H.M.O) (Class C4)

Land Adjacent to 8 Field Street, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 6TR

Mr J Padley, Kalas Properties

Proposal:          Erection of four houses for use as Class C4 HMO

Location:          Land Adjacent to 8 Field Street   Boston

Applicant:         Mr J Padley   Kalas Properties

The Development Control Manager presented the report confirming that the application was the first of its type in the Borough.  Because permitted development rights permitted the change from Class C3 to Class C4 without the need for an application, officers considered it better to grant the application which gave the authority control on the HMO.

Representation was received by the agent which included:

Confirming the application had been brought to committee due to its uniqueness the agent addressed the objections which had been raised.  No objections had been received from LCC and as such it has to be agreed that the parking provision is acceptable.  Anti-social behaviour.  Neighbours had concerns about a community garden but we have amended the plan to know provided individual gardens for each dwelling.  Impact on residential amenity.  The design and relationship to neighbours is the same as the 2014 scheme and as such there was no justification for an alternative position being taken. 

Committee were also asked to note that the Councils’ Housing Officer had expressed his satisfaction with the room sizes, welfare facilities and fire safety issues incorporated within the scheme.  Building regulation consent had also been granted to change the properties into small HMO’s so they are considered satisfactory in respect of health, safety and welfare facilities.

Councillor Sue Ransome advised at this point in the meeting that she may have rented a property from the applicant during the last year but was unsure if it was the actual applicant or a relative of.  The Monitoring Officer advised that if Councillor Ransome was clearly unsure then her comment be recorded as a matter of information.

It was moved by Councillor Michael Cooper and seconded by Councillor Stephen Woodliffe that the application be granted in line with officer recommendation and subject to the conditions therein:

Vote:        8 in favour.      3 against.        1 abstention.

RESOLVED:    That the Committee Grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1.            The development hereby permitted shall be occupiedbegun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason:    Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans

§    Location plan scale 1/1250 (1/5)

§    Block Plan ref 8634/28 rev A (2a/5)

§    Ground floor plan ref 8634/22 rev A (3/5)

§    First and second floor plans ref 8634/23 rev A (4/5)

§    Elevations ref 8634/24 rev A (5a/5)

Reason:  To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved details and to accord with Adopted Local Plan Policy G1.

3        The fencing scheme shown on plan 8634/28 rev A and Ground floor plan ref 8634/22 rev A shall be implemented in full before occupation of any of the units hereby approved and shall be retained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

A report on the receipt of an appeal decision against a refusal in respect of The Lindens, Church End, Wrangle

Committee noted the report.

The delegated decision list for the period 11^th May to 6^th June 2016 – for noting

Committee noted the delegated decision list.