Agenda item

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 receiving the first application the Interim Development Manager addressed committee with an additional material planning consideration that needed to be considered in respect of the first two items on the agenda:

Committee were advised that just before the papers had been sent out a couple of days or so beforehand, an appeal decision had been received in respect of a proposed development for land off St. Swithins Close Bicker for an outline application for residential development up to 40 dwellings.  Members had been issued with a copy of the appeal decision prior to the meeting and the Interim Development Manager stated he thought it to be a curious decision.   The key point was it was a material consideration that had to be given appropriate weight in future decision making and had considerable implications for the first two applications on the days’ agenda.  Members were reminded that the original application for St. Swithins Close Bicker had been in outline with all matters reserved. 

Referring committee to paragraph 5 the Interim Development Manager  the first issue was whether the development would be in a suitable location with particular reference to local policies concerned with housing in rural areas and the accessibility of services and facilities;  the second issue was the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and the third issue was whether or not there was a conflict with the development plan and whether or not it would be out-weighed by other material consideration.    The application had been refused by the committee for two reasons:  the first being the sustainability reason and the second was the intrusion into the open countryside.  The Inspector had not supported the view that Bicker was not a sustainable settlement. 

The Interim Development Manager stressed that that decision would be very important not just in respect of the first application which itself was in Bicker, but also for the second application.

Members and Officers needed to consider that there was a need for consistency in decision making.  Members needed to treat every application on its individual merits whilst also being consistent in their decision making   On the application all matters had been reserved but it appeared that the Inspector had moved the acceptability of whether or not an acceptable scheme could be devised to the reserved matters stage.  Members were advised that the Interim Development Manager felt in his view it would be that the Inspector normally would have effectively dismissed the appeal on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate at the outline stage that the impacts could be mitigated.   The third point was a very important point and it did return to the sustainability argument but it also had broader implication for the decision making of the committee up to the adoption of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan. To date committee had not given the emerging plan any weight.  This had not been the case with this decision notice and the Inspector had pointed that there was a conflict in the way committee treated the settlement hierarchy between the Boston Borough Local Plan Policy H4 from the Interim Plan with growth permitted in the emerging Local Plan. 

Committee were asked to note it was a very fundamental appeal decision which the Interim Development Manager thought raised questions over some of the Inspectors thought processes made in respect of the landscaping issue and intrusion into the countryside mitigation.  Committee were advised to take legal advice on how to move forward in their treatment of the emerging plan and were strongly cautioned against determining the first two applications until such legal advice had been taken.

The Interim Development Manager advised his amended recommendation would be to defer any decision for one cycle for both items 1 and 2.  He did however note that it would clearly be a matter for the committee to decide following presentation of the applications and receipt of the public representation.

Councillor Claire Rylott exempted from the meeting at this point in the proceedings