Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies for absence were tabled for Councillor Paul Goodale and Councillor Yvonne Stevens.

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

With the agreement of the committee, the Chairman signed the minutes of the previous meeting held on 10 January 2023

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

Standing declarations of interest are tabled for the following members of the planning committee in their current roles as members or representatives of the following:

Members of Lincolnshire County Council Councillors Tom Ashton, Alison Austin and Paul Skinner.

Members of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee Councillors Tom Ashton, Peter Bedford and Paul Skinner

Representatives of the Internal Drainage Boards Councillors Tom Ashton, Peter Bedford, Frank Pickett and Judith Welbourn.

No additional declarations of interest were tabled.

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 2^nd February 2023

No public questions were tabled.

Erection of 4 no. 1.5 storey dwellings and a detached garage and

construction of a private access road

73 & 73A, Rosebery Avenue, Boston PE21 7QR

Rosebery Homes Ltd

Erection of 4 no. 1.5 storey dwellings and a detached garage and

construction of a private access road

73 & 73A, Rosebery Avenue, Boston PE21 7QR

Rosebery Homes Ltd

The Senior Planner presented the report confirming there were no updates to the information therein.  The report had been called-in by the ward Member for a variety of reasons including being contrary to Policy 30 in respect of impact of noise on residents, concerns in respect of the land quality and concerns at the narrowness of the access track and potential risk to pedestrians.

The site was within an existing residential site with two backland dwellings, 73 and 73a Rosebery Avenue, both of which are currently unoccupied. The site is within the settlement boundary for Boston, within Flood Zone 3 and within the Danger for All Flood Hazard Zone.  The site would be accessed via a driveway between 67 and 79 Rosebery Avenue that sit on the roadside. The site widened at the rear of the properties to a broadly rectangular site that featured the two existing dwellings and large area to the rear that served as the gardens for those properties but was not currently maintained.

To the south of the site was a similar arrangement, with 65a and 65b Rosebery avenue occupying a backland site. To the north of the site was The Boundary, a cul-de-sac development with several bungalows, 6 of which share a boundary with the site.

The application sought permission to demolish the two existing dwellings and erect four 1.5 storey dwellings. Plots 1, 2 and 4 would back on to the southern boundary of the site, with Plot 3 sitting perpendicular to these. An access road would run from the current driveway along the north of the site to serve all 4 properties.  An additional plot was proposed in the north west of this but this has been removed by amendments with a landscaped area now proposed in that corner. Further amendments have been received that amend a window on Plot 2.

The application has been accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Biodiversity Assessment and Flood Risk Assessment.

Representation was received by Mr Andrew Clover the agent for the applicant which included:

Members were asked to note that the site already had two existing dwellings which although unused, had been previously accommodated and as such the actual application was only for two additional dwellings plus the garage, as the two already on site would be replaced, leaving only two more to be built.  

The Environment Agency had stated they considered the development would be safe for its lifetime.  Lincolnshire County Highways had stated it did not wish to restrict the grant of the permission and had raised no objections to the application.  Both the Highway and Lead Local Flood Authority had been mindful of the fact, that there was already an existing access which was suitable and would allow drivers intending to enter the highway at the access to have sufficient visibility of approaching traffic and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 150.

A report by the Deputy Development Manager

The Deputy Development Manager presented the report for information to advise members of the receipt of appeal decisions received since the previous report and highlight any key decisions or themes arising.

There had been 4 Appeals since the last report to Members. Of those, none were allowed, 3 dismissed and 1 had been withdrawn. The Appeals related to a mix of application and development types, including changes of use, minor householder and an adult gaming centre.

The report was the first update since July 2022, and whilst there is a small number of appeals 3 out of the 4 are dismissed and 1 was withdrawn. There are also a mix of cases with different application types and policy issues, including enforcement involvement.

At one of the Appeals, the Council were represented externally, B/21/0461 by Counsel. In this case this represented value for money given the complexity of the case and the format as a hearing. No Costs Awards were made in connection with any of the Appeals.

In general terms, the Council has been able to demonstrate its position in respect of all Appeals, generally the Local Plan policy continues to perform well with all those appeals that were determined being dismissed by Inspectors.  It was notable that Inspectors afforded weight to other material considerations including the general sustainability of locations and environmental, social and economic benefits of proposals when forming their planning balance. This is not uncharacteristic when considering wider decisions across the Partnership and the general trend nationally.

Overall, our Appeal performance remains good and is better than national target over the rolling 2 year period. This is a good indicator of the quality of decision taking. This is also considered to be reflective of the current position with the adopted local plan, which will have an effect in terms of guiding development and reducing the Councils exposure to speculative applications.

The Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) monitors authorities in relation to the number of major and non-major applications overturned (i.e. allowed) at appeal.  The threshold was for fewer than 20% of all major applications determined overturned at appeal over a rolling two-year period (i.e. the total number of major decisions divided by the total number overturned).  For authorities who exceed this target, they would be classed as ‘poorly performing’ and applications for major developments may be made by developers directly to the Planning Inspectorate. DLUHC also monitor the threshold for quality of decisions for non-major applications, the threshold for which is 10%.  Like the major threshold, it was the total number of non-major applications overturned at appeal compared to the total number of non-major decisions made. 

The Council was therefore significantly within government’s target and not at risk of being classed as poorly performing.

Members noted the report.