Agenda and draft minutes

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Claire Rylott.

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

Standing declarations of interest were received for all members of the Council who are also members of:

The South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee:

Councillors Bedford, Pierpoint, Scoot and Welberry. Councillor Alison Austin acts as a substitute.

The Internal Drainage Boards: Councillor Bedford, Evans, Rylott, Scoot and Welberry.

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

The minutes of the meeting on 7^th October 2025 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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 8^th January 2026.

No questions were received.

Application type:Listed Building Consent

Proposal:Listed Building Consent for relocation and renovation of the “5 lamps” listed monument to the new public realm scheme

Application type: Listed Building Consent

Proposal: Listed Building Consent for relocation and renovation of the “5 lamps” listed monument to the new public realm scheme.

Location: Crown House, Lincoln Lane, Boston, PE21 8SJ.

The Chairman opened the item by welcoming Members and members of the public to the meeting. He introduced the application and invited officers to present the report. The Committee was reminded that the application had been referred for determination by Members for transparency, as the proposal had been submitted by Boston Borough Council itself as part of the Rosegarth Square regeneration project.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application and confirmed that it related to the relocation and refurbishment of the Grade II Listed “Five Lamps” monument, which was currently situated on a grassed area just

north of Liquorpond Street and south of John Adams Way, and that the proposal formed part of the wider Rosegarth Square regeneration scheme.

Slides were presented showing the current site, the surrounding context, and the proposed new location north of the new NHS building. Members were reminded that the existing B&M building and Crown House had been demolished and that large parts of the regeneration site were under active construction.

The Officer described the current condition of the monument, noting that it was in “a particularly poor state of repair”, with damaged paintwork and missing historic pilot lights. He confirmed that the refurbishment works would include cleaning, repair, reinstatement of pilot lights, replacement lanterns, construction of a new plinth and the installation of an interpretation board to explain the lamp’s history.

Members were advised that historically the monument had also stood in the Market Place, where the original gas lamp had been located. The current electric replacement dates from the 1920s. The Officer also highlighted the Red Beech tree that currently stands near the proposed new siting, indicating that it was already programmed to be removed as part of another application to be considered later that day.

The Officer reported that Historic England had submitted late comments seeking additional information about the impacts on the monument’s setting, but officers considered that there was already sufficient information to determine the application, and that any remaining details could be satisfactorily secured by condition.

He confirmed that the rejuvenated location would provide greater visibility, increased footfall and would allow the lamp to sit within a “more prominent and accessible town centre position”. He advised that the lamp did not derive heritage significance from its existing site.

There were no registered public speakers on this item.

The Chairman opened the debate.

Members expressed support for the relocation, noting that the monument had suffered neglect in its present position and that it would benefit from being placed within a regenerated public realm.

One Member remarked on the long?standing deterioration of the structure in its current location and welcomed the opportunity to restore it and “give it a new lease of life”. Another Member commented that they had not previously appreciated the monument’s historic interest  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Application type: s73 - Non-Major

Proposal: Application under s73 to vary Conditions 2 (Plans), C4 (Design of the "Wave"), C5 (30 year Management & Maintenance Plan) and C6 (Hard & Soft Landscaping) of planning permission B/24/0377

Application Type: S73 - Non-Major.

Proposal: Application under s73 to vary Conditions 2 (Plans), C4 (Design of the "Wave"), C5 (30 year Management & Maintenance Plan) and C6 (Hard

& Soft Landscaping) of planning permission B/24/0377.

Site: Public Open Space, Rosegarth Street, Boston PE21 8QU

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application and explained that it formed part of the wider Rosegarth Square regeneration scheme, noting that Members had already considered and approved the original development under reference B/24/0377. Since that decision, the applicant had refined elements of the public art and landscaping proposals, requiring a Section 73 application because the amended design differed too significantly to be approved through a simple discharge of conditions.

The Committee was reminded that the regeneration proposals covered the area stretching from the St Botolph’s footbridge to the Len Medlock Centre, incorporating new footways, planting, public spaces, relocated artwork, and enhanced pedestrian routes. Work on site had already commenced, with the former Crown House and B&M buildings demolished and construction under way on new public realm and adjacent developments.

Slides were presented showing:

·        the previously approved scheme, including the earlier “Wave” design

·        the revised layout, including amended paths, adjustments near the NHS building footprint, and the proposed siting of the Five Lamps monument

·        the new single?arch design of the “Wave” artwork, compared to the previous double?arched form

·        updated landscape and planting arrangements

The Officer explained that the revised “Wave” design was a simplified, cleaner interpretation of the concept originally approved. The proposed height remained approximately 8 metres at its tallest point, and the structure would still function as a focal public art feature within the square. He emphasised that the principles of installing public art and delivering a high?quality public realm had already been accepted by the Committee through earlier approvals.

The Committee was further advised that the revised scheme continued to meet design and heritage considerations, with the site lying adjacent to the Boston Conservation Area and within the setting of the Grade I listed St Botolph’s Church. Updated Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) calculations were required due to planting changes, but officers confirmed that a 10% gain could still be achieved, subject to the resubmission of a BNG plan through condition.

There were no registered public speakers on this item.

The Chairman opened the debate.

A range of views were expressed regarding the revised artwork. One Member stated that they were “not impressed” by the new design and felt it might become an “object for ridicule”, questioning whether public money should be spent on such artwork. Another Member queried the positions of the buoys and the Fishermen’s Memorial within the landscaping, and officers provided clarification using the original plans.

Concerns were raised about the potential for vandalism, as well as the durability of the structure. Members also queried whether the revised design offered the same visual impact as the version previously approved. In response, the Development Manager reminded Members that financial considerations and maintenance budgets were not material planning issues,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Application Type:     s73 – Major

Proposal: Application under s73 for the Variation of Conditions 1 (Approved Drawings) of permission B/22/0393 (works already started)

Application Type: S73 – Major

Proposal: Application under s73 for the Variation of Conditions 1 (Approved

Drawings) of permission B/22/0393 (works already started)

Site: Land North of Tytton Lane East, Wyberton Boston PE21 7TD

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report and explained that full planning permission and reserved matters approval had already been granted for 132 dwellings on the site (initial outline consent in June 2022 and reserved matters approval in February 2023). A start had been made on site, but no substantive construction had yet occurred. The current application sought:

1.     Minor design amendments to a number of approved house types, involving small changes such as the loss of chimneys and window adjustments; and

2.     Removal of all Section 106 contributions (affordable housing, education, health and monitoring) on viability grounds.

It was emphasised that the design amendments were very minor and did not materially affect the appearance or character of the development. The principal matter before the Committee was the viability evidence submitted by the developer.

The Officer outlined the viability appraisal in detail. Cyden Homes had submitted evidence stating that the scheme was not viable if required to provide:

·        20% affordable housing (20 affordable rent units and 6 intermediate units)

·        £540,083 plus indexation for education

·        £87,120 plus indexation for health

·        Monitoring fees

The Council had commissioned an independent viability review, which concluded that:

·        Abnormal costs, particularly abnormal foundation costs, were significantly higher than typical;

·        Even after the independent assessor reduced the abnormal costs from approximately £5 million to £3 million, the scheme still could not support any S106 contributions;

·        With no contributions at all, the residual land value remained below the benchmark land value, meaning the scheme was technically unviable.

The Officer confirmed that Lincolnshire County Council and the NHS had objected due to the loss of education and health mitigation. Both had indicated the removal of contributions would have adverse impacts on local service capacity.

However, he noted that Policy 6 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan allowed the Council to take into account viability when determining the level of contributions required, and that the Council’s five?year housing land supply currently stood at 4.6 years, meaning that deliverability carried significant weight.

Members were advised that the Officer recommendation included a Deed of Variation containing a clawback clause, requiring a further viability review at a future trigger point to ensure that if the development became more profitable than expected, some contributions could be reclaimed.

There were no registered public speakers on this item.

The Chairman opened the debate.

Several Members expressed strong concern at the loss of affordable housing, together with the education and health contributions, and at the broader pattern of developers revisiting viability after planning permission had been granted. One Member commented that this was becoming common across the country and placed councils in difficult positions.

Members asked questions about:

·        Whether the developer had known about ground conditions earlier.

·        How the independent viability assessor was appointed and funded.

·        Whether the loss of infrastructure  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

(A report by the Principal Planning Officer – for noting.)

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report summarising appeal decisions received since the previous update. Members were advised that 10 planning appeals had been determined during the period, of which 8 were dismissed and 2 allowed, and that an enforcement notice appeal had also been upheld.

The Officer reported that the outcomes demonstrated strong overall performance, with no appeal decisions resulting in costs against the Council and both major and non?major appeal rates remaining well below Government thresholds. The Planning Inspectorate continued to support the Council’s application of key Local Plan policies, particularly in relation to spatial strategy and flood risk, which featured prominently in several decisions.

Members were also updated on the ongoing appeal at White House Lane, Fishtoft, where the Council had taken the decision not to contest the appeal due to the change in the five?year housing land supply position, meaning policies most important for determining housing applications were now considered out?of?date.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.