Agenda item

Major - Full Planning Permission

 

Construction of 102no. residential dwellings     

 

Agricultural land adjacent to White House Lane, Fishtoft, Boston PE21 0BE

Major - Full Planning Permission

 

Construction of 102no. residential dwellings

 

Agricultural land adjacent to White House Lane, Fishtoft, Boston

PE21 0BE

 

Prior to the consideration of this item, Councillor Sarah Sharpe left the committee table and took a seat in the public gallery. She did not take part in the committee’s deliberation on this item.

 

The application had been called in for committee determination by ward member, Councillor Sharpe, for the following reasons:

 

Policy 2 – Development Management:

·       That the number of dwellings exceeded those allocated to the site under the Local Plan

·       That there were concerns about accessibility to the properties given that they each had steps leading to the access point.

·       That there were concerns about road safety and infrastructure.

 

Policy 3 – Design of a new development:

·       That the plans were incongruous of the existing properties in the area.

·       That there was also limited public transport available.

·       That there were issues with the accessibility of the properties.

 

The application site was on the south-eastern edge of Boston to the east of White House Lane. It was 3.01 hectares in size and had been in agricultural use although currently fallow. To the north was 72 White House Lane and allotments. To the west was White House Lane with existing dwellings facing the application site. To the south was 1 White House Lane with agricultural fields beyond as well as to the east. The site was predominantly open with a few trees and hedgerows dotted along the northern and southern boundaries.

 

The application site was agricultural land and, according to the Borough wide Defra records, designated Grade 1. The site was within the Environment Agency Flood Risk Zone 3. The Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 2010 identified the majority of the site as having a Flood Hazard rating of ‘Danger for All’ and a ‘medium’ tidal flood probability. The site had a depth from flooding for the 200-year event (2115) predominately in the range 0.5m – 1.6m.

 

There were no listed buildings or tree preservation orders on the site.

 

Running approximately east-west through the middle of the site were overhead power lines and a pylon approximately 50 metres from the site boundary with White House Lane. A Tree Preservation Order (Fishtoft No 5) applied outside of the site, the closest protected tree was within the rear garden of Jasmine (number 76), to the north of the application site on White

House Lane. This would not be affected by the development.

 

In 2019 the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan had allocated the site for residential development as allocation Fis003, Land east of White House Lane, with a notional estimated capacity of 90 dwellings (see Inset Map 1 and Policy 11).

 

The Development Manager outlined that the application was for 102 dwellings and associated infrastructure and had been recommended for approval, subject to conditions and the completion of a section 106 agreement. He referred to the original report and the supplementary report, the latter of which was in response to additional information following discussions which had taken place between the applicant and consultees. It primarily related to a vehicle tracking diagram, amended house tenure layout, a refuse strategy and further details of the ecological mitigation. He confirmed that the additional information did not alter the officer’s assessment of the proposal or the recommendation.

 

The Development Manager presented information about the application site, including the boundaries and the location of existing properties.

 

Details were provided about the site layout, which included a mixture of one, two, three and four bedroomed properties, including affordable properties which would be spread across the site rather than concentrated in one area. Areas of green space were provided as well as a buffer zone at the boundary of the site which formed part of the ecological mitigations, details of which had been provided, including the location of a Dyke. Details of the indicative drainage layout were provided. A detailed condition existed which would secure the drainage plans. Details of street scene, boundaries and examples of house type were provided. They included design details relating to the steps to the properties, which had been a source of objection to the application. Details of the location of pylons were also provided, which had also been a source of objection to the application.

 

In relation to the principle of development, the Development Manager confirmed that the site was allocated in the Local Plan for 90 dwellings and had received outline planning consent for up to 83 dwellings, although that consent had since lapsed. The principle of the residential development of the site had been established through the site allocation and the issue to be considered was the housing numbers proposed, their design and consideration of all other material considerations.

 

Housing numbers was the main concern of objectors and although the applicant proposed a higher number of houses than the allocation, any site allocation set an initial target of houses to be developed. It was not a prescriptive number and did not prevent an applicant seeking permission for a greater number of houses providedand neither did it warrant a reason for refusal of the application. In relation to the density of the site, the plans were considered acceptable based on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and a refusal based on density would be difficult to defend on appeal given the absence of identifiable harm.

 

In relation to design, the development proposed a mixture of houses with between one and four bedrooms, including bungalows. The tenure of the housing would be policy compliant. There would be flood risk mitigations.

 

The Development Manager accepted that the officer’s report was finely balanced.

 

Planning officer’s concerns in relation to the presence of steps had been noted. There were also concerns about the issues of design and accessibility which might be presented for future residents. These concerns had been considered against the requirements of the Local Plan, the NPPF and national design guides and it was considered, on balance, that the concerns regarding accessibility would not justify the refusal of the application.

 

Concerns had been raised about visual amenity at the site but given the landscaping mitigations, it was considered that it did not warrant the refusal of the application. Biodiversity Net Gain of 10% could be achieved.

 

Concerns about neighbouring amenity had been raised and officers were content there was sufficient distance from existing properties with no loss of light, or privacy, and no direct facing of properties. There would be a change of outlook with the loss of the field however the right to a view was not a relevant planning consideration.

 

In relation to flood risk, the statutory consultees had not raised any objections to the scheme. The applicant had provided detailed information about the proposed drainage scheme and a condition would be included requiring a suitable drainage scheme prior to construction commencing.

 

In relation to highways safety, the plans demonstrated that the existing highways network could absorb additional traffic without a safety risk and there had been no objection to the proposal from Lincolnshire County Council. The site would benefit from enhanced pedestrian and cycle routes to access services.

 

The Development Manager outlined the independent viability assessment and appraisal. Agreement had been reached that there would be a contribution of £131,000 towards affordable housing provision secured through a section 106 agreement.

 

The Development Manager concluded by indicating that despite officer concerns on some of the issues outlined, the principle of the development of the site was acceptable and on balance, the harm arising from those concerns were not considered to be significant or would warrant the refusal of the application. The scheme would deliver housing on an allocated site within the Local Plan.

 

Mr Ian Scott, who was speaking in objection to the application, addressed the Committee.

 

Mr Scott outlined the concern that the site would have a greater density of housing than intended by the Local Plan and that the number of houses should be reduced to take that into account. He proposed that the number of properties already built in Fishtoft since April 2011 should reduce the number of properties proposed at the site by 12 dwellings.

 

Mr Scott stated that the application was not compliant with disability access and human rights legislation by having only stepped access. He indicated that developers had received more than 10 years grace to ensure compliance with the legislation.

 

On grounds of loss of privacy, Mr Scott suggested that 32 dwellings be removed from the application. In relation to concerns about the location of pylons, he indicated that 8-31 dwellings should be removed from the application.

 

Taking in account the above factors, Mr Scott advised that the application should be rejected and re-submitted to comply with primary legislation, as the Local Plan provided mandatory requirements which required compliance. In relation to the stepped access to the dwellings, he indicated that mandatory primary legislation would not be complied with if the plans were approved. The site would discriminate against 25-48% of citizens.

 

Mr Scott confirmed that minimum privacy distances were not being complied with and indicated that 32 dwellings should be removed or re-positioned as a result  of the breach of privacy which would arise.

 

In relation to the location of electricity pylons, there would be no buffer space on either side. Mr Scott referred to local policies and indicated that any principles advanced in support of the application had been disregarded by a nearby development in Fishtoft where a precedent existed for an open space corridor of 10-20 metres from the pylons to provide for public safety from radiation.

 

Members of the Committee requested clarification in relation to the following issues:

 

Mr Scott was asked to elaborate on concerns regarding loss of privacy. He advised that there were requirements for minimum distances between facing houses and referred to his supporting documents which demonstrated that some of the dwellings at the site would fall within an arc of overlapping (as being within 21-25 metres) which was within the minimum distance requirement. On that basis and as a result of the density at the site, there should be an adjustment to remove or re-position properties which would suffer from a loss of privacy.

 

In relation to the pylons, Mr Scott clarified his earlier comments about the precedent of more open space and a wider corridor between dwellings and pylons having been established by an existing development in Fishtoft. He confirmed that there was no fixed law on the issue but there were concerns about the health impact which might arise from the proximity of pylons to dwellings.

 

In response, the Development Manager indicated that there was no planning law requirement and that clarification had been obtained from the electricity board regarding the concerns raised. In relation to privacy, he indicated that there was guidance but no planning law which set in statute and advised that each planning authority set their own guidance by which the plans had been assessed, and in the opinion of officers there were no concerns in relation to loss of light or privacy. In regards to separation distances, officers had no concerns in relation to overlooking into habitable rooms or about over-shadowing. The Development Manager disagreed with the suggestion that there had to be a 25 metre separation, which was not a legal requirement.

 

Councillor Sharpe addressed the Committee as a public speaker. She referred to the Local Plan and recommendation that the site should have an allocation of 90 dwellings and pointed to the application seeking approval for 102 homes, which exceeded the Local Plan recommendation. She referred to the proposed density as being described in the report as significantly higher than average within the area.

 

Councillor Sharpe stated that any new development should reflect the existing area’s distinctive development form. Of particular concern were plots 93 and 94 which were not set back from the road like others within the same scheme. The inconsistent positioning would make them appear awkward and out of place within the streetscape.

 

In terms of density, Councillor Sharpe indicated that the plans reduced internal square footage per resident. She cited  concerns that the plans would provide below standard privacy for many dwellings and an overall cramped feel; and had concerns for the properties, particularly number 65, which would be subject to headlights shining through their windows as they would be opposite the main road of the development.

 

Councillor Sharpe referred to the report by SEA Consulting Engineers which stated in Section 5.3.1 that the proposed development would not meet the minimum car parking provision outlined in policy 6, 36 and Appendix 6 within the Local Plan. She outlined her concerns about where additional cars and visitor cars would park, particularly those visiting plot 94 where the driveway exited directly onto a busy road. Additionally, she highlighted the use of tandem parking which she considered to be problematic. The increased likelihood of on street parking could pose risks for passing traffic, refuse collection and emergency services. Section 3.3.7 of the Local Plan stated that it was necessary to ensure that developments did not have an adverse impact on physical or social infrastructure such as roads. Although tactile crossings were proposed, they would not alleviate the issues on White House Lane, which was already heavily trafficked and had only a single footpath located on the opposite side of the road from the proposed development.

 

Councillor Sharpe referred to concerns regarding road safety on adjacent roads, and one incident involving a child. Since the SEA report, three years ago, traffic from new developments had increased at Toot Lane, including increased HGV use of local roads. Although the Parish Council had arranged the installation of speed signage  approval of the application at a greater density to what had originally been proposed would exacerbate those concerns. She also referred to poor pedestrian visibility, particularly on roads near the primary school.

 

In relation to accessibility, the properties featured steps to the front entrance and into the rear garden, which could severely limit access for less able people, people with mobility issues, or those with young children, especially those using prams and push chairs. Councill Sharpe stated that the design choice was contrary to the principal of inclusive housing and went against policy 17 of the Local Plan. She referred to 7.15 in the report and the National Planning Policy Framework which stated that planning decisions should create places that were safe, inclusive and accessible, and section 7.16 which referenced the National Design Guide, paragraph 120, which stated that well designed homes and buildings should be functional, accessible and sustainable, and should meet the needs of a diverse range of users. She expressed concern that this could not be achieved when the designs included steps into the house and garden. She highlighted a recent nearby development on the corner of Toot Lane which had successfully addressed flood risk issues by adjusting ground levels to provide step free access, which the applicant had been asked to provide.

 

Councillor Sharpe concluded by indicating that there were design shortcomings and that residents deserved homes that were appropriately sized, afforded sufficient privacy and were accessible to all.

 

Members of the Committee requested clarification in relation to the following issues:

 

Clarification was provided in relation to the location of the specific properties which might be affected by not being set back from the road at the junction to the proposed development and the impact of car lights on the facing properties.

 

In relation to parking for the dwellings, clarification was requested in relation to the number of parking spaces for properties and their design.

 

The Development Manager confirmed that the scheme had been amended by the applicant and that it complied with the County Council’s road parking requirements and that no objections had been received, specifically concerns regarding safety and capacity had not been raised by Lincolnshire County Council Highways. He added that the amended plan included the required number of parking spaces per property.

 

Councillor Sharpe was then required to leave the meeting in accordance with the Committee’s protocol.

 

The Development Manager reiterated that in any Local Plan where there was an allocation for a housing number, it was not prescriptive, and that it was possible for an applicant to exceed this number. Density requirements were not being breached by the application. In relation to accessibility, he referred to section 7.18 of the report and the Local Plan which did not require accessibility standards.

 

Committee deliberation occurred in relation to the following issues:

 

Deliberation occurred in relation to accessibility to the properties. It also occurred in relation to the location of the properties in proximity to the electricity pylons and possible health considerations.

 

Concerns were expressed about road safety adjacent to the site and it was queried whether there were any statistics which would help inform the committee. The Development Manager confirmed that traffic management data existed and that Lincolnshire County Council had confirmed there was no road accident pattern at the site and that the application was not considered to breach the significant harm threshold.

 

The density of housing at the site was also re-considered.

 

Resolved:

 

That the application be refused on the following grounds:  that the density of housing at the site would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area, landscape and local built environment.

 

The meeting adjourned at 12.09 and reconvened at 13.45  to consider the following item.

 

Councillor Lina Savickiene left the meeting at 12.09 p.m. and did not return for consideration of the next item.