Agenda item

PLANNING APPLICATION B 17 0248

Erection of 5 no. three bedroom town houses to the rear of existing dwelling.

 

67 Sleaford Road  Boston  Lincolnshire  PE21 8EX

 

Mr S Epton

Minutes:

Erection of 5 no. three bedroom town houses to the rear of existing dwelling

 

67 Sleaford Road, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 8EX

 

Mr S Epton

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and advised three updates to the report tabled.

 

The first update was in respect of representations and committee were advised that one further representation had been received from the occupier of no.69 Sleaford Road citing concerns in respect of the proposed removal of trees within the site and the need for additional fencing to safeguard amenity.

 

The second updated confirmed that County Highways had responded and confirmed they had no objection to the application subject to condition which related to alterations to the existing access onto Sleaford Road.

 

The final update confirmed members would be asked to agree an additional condition was recommended which would relate to surface water disposal and third party flooding.

 

No representation was received in respect of this application.

 

It was moved by Councillor Michael Cooper and seconded by Councillor Jonathan Noble that the application be refused contrary to officer recommendation as proposed development undermined the amenity and character of the area and would be contrary to the objectives of Local Plan policies H2, H3 and G1.

 

In Favour:  12.         Against:  0.      Abstentions:  0.     Unanimous Decision.

 

 

RESOLVED:   That the application be refused contrary to officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

1.           The siting of the proposed development behind the host property is out of character with the pattern of development in the area and the design of the proposed terraced block is unsympathetic to the architectural form, appearance, style and proportions of the host property and other residential properties in the area. The proposed development will therefore undermine the amenity and character of the area and will be contrary to the objectives of Local Plan policies H2, H3 and G1. The development also does not meet the objectives of the NPPF.

 

 

 

2.           The proposed development, by virtue of its design, height, window location and its relationship with neighbouring properties to the east and west of the site in particular, will result in overlooking and erode privacy and the living conditions of neighbouring residents and the occupiers of the flats within the host property. The development will substantially harm the amenity of the neighbouring residents and the proposed development is therefore contrary to Local Plan policy G1.

 

3.            The density of the proposed development coupled with the 9 flats within the host property is significantly high compared to the density, form and character of the surrounding area. The proposed development therefore represents over-development, resulting in an alien and incompatible form of development which will be contrary to the objectives of Local Plan policies H2 and H3.

 

4.           The proposed provision for the storage and collection area for wheelie bins which will serve the proposed 5 dwellings and the 9 flats within the host property and will be located near to the south and western boundaries will result in visual harm to the amenity and character of the area, contrary to the objectives of Local Plan policy G1.

 

5.           The proposed number of car spaces is insufficient to accommodate the proposed development and the flats within the host property. The development will therefore result in on-street parking and will compromise highway safety, contrary to Local Plan policies G1 and G6.

 

 

It is recorded that Councillors Alison Austin and Stephen Woodliffe

absented from the meeting at this part in the proceedings.

 

Councillor Yvonne Stevens declared that she had received lobbying in respect of planning application B 17 0317 but she had not responded

Supporting documents: