Agenda item


Outline application for residential development (up to 8 dwellings) with all matters reserved for later approval


Land west of Millview, Donington Road, Kirton End, Boston, PE20 1NX


Mr Carl Bates


Outline application for residential development (up to 8 dwellings) with

all matters reserved for later approval

Land west of Millview, Donington Road, Kirton End, Boston, PE20 1NX

Mr Carl Bates.


The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to the committee and advised an update following issue of the agenda. 

One further representation had been submitted in objection to the application from KEROTD and prepared on behalf of a number of residents at Kirton End.  Copies of the submission had been issued to all committee members ahead of the meeting and it was for members to place the appropriate weight on the letter in the determination of the application.


Representation was received in objection to the application by Mr McCrory which included:


The residents represented by KEROTD had sought to represent what was best for their community.  The residents had been mocked as being emotional standing in the way of progress and delusional.  They had entered into the process with a genuine belief in what they were doing.  Helping people to own their own home was admirable and was enshrined in a ‘right to buy’ policy adopted by several governments and had become subjected to a singular abused adjunct affordability.  With no method to enforce that adjunct it had been waved around with immunity as a weapon in planning applications to beat down those who object and to conceal the profitability that drove the application process.  The countries brown belt communities had been pummelled with many permanently scarred by housing developments.  Agricultural output had been eroded and the working countryside permanently eviscerated.  How did it re-invigorate settlements that had not asked for alien intrusion offering benefits to the community which would not be delivered?  The adverse impact of the application outweighed its benefits.  Ambition was a mixture of desire and determination excellent qualities applied correctly.  Applied within a thin guise of greed they were dangerous and divisive and should not be allowed to challenge others of their statutory entitlement.  KEROTD’s definitive position was in five ways.  Number one was the right to reasonableness The Wednesbury Test and the Third Limb. Number two its right to a duty of care, foreseeability, interest for the good of the community and material risk and vicarious liability.  Three its right to enjoy one’s own possessions unclean hands depravation of rights and process subversion.  Number four right to privacy and limitations of public authority to interfere.  Number five statement of intent affirmation of rights to judicial review and equity.  Conclusion to approve the development was not a controlling measure it was a deprivatory measure which would deprive residents of their rights and permanently increase traffic and add road hazardous at Donington Road and Kirton End.  It would further erode the working countryside.  The proposal had no interest in the good of the community and was a bare knuckle for profit enterprise with a conniving edifice of political platitudes about home ownership, affordability and sustainability it had surreptitious plausibility and lacked any binding commitment to the platitudes rendering the application baseless.  If the information put forward by KEROTD was rejected then then narrative would be clear in that ordinary residents would be second class citizens in their own dwellings.  Land owners and property developers seeking to cash in could not be challenged with a reasonable chance of success.  Boston Borough had become the new ‘Old Sarum constituency’


Representation was received by the applicant’s agent Mr Dwan which included:


The application culmination of extensive work by the project team following initial pre application meeting back in July with officers.  Crucially the collaboration and statutory consultees established a position whereby the proposed scheme of development had been demonstrated to be entirely appropriate from a technical delivery perspective.  As such the decision related solely to the principle of development in context of the tilted planning balance under para.11 of the NPPF and presumption in favour of sustainable development triggered by the current lack of 5 year supply.   The report produced by the planning officer had been very balanced and on reading it the recommendation for refusal had been a surprise.   Planning Policy could sometimes restrict the opportunity for common sense to prevail in decision making which was prevalent within the recommendation for this application.  The applicants could not argue that the site was immediately outside the village envelopment, however, further to the west of the site was an established collection of mixed dwellings and commercial properties which meant that in reality the 8 lots proposed would constitute infill.  Impact on the open characteristic of the area would be limited by established development on three and a quarter sides of the site. Limiting the impact from a visual perspective.  The only open aspect view was from the north with that element of the site already framed by existing farm buildings set in the context of a built form backdrop.  The submission included a master plan to demonstrate the scheme of 8 plots could be achieved, it was only indicative and although adequate separation distances has been demonstrated for the plots facing the site, the applicant would have the opportunity to ensure that visual amenity of plots facing the site could be appropriately protected at reserved matters stage should the application be successful. Addressing precedents in the area Mr Dwan referenced a recent approval in Kirton End at 322a Willington Road for a residential plot whereby the recognised perceived encroachment into the countryside was not dissimilar to the application.  The revised NPPF recently published stated in para.74 and 88 that greater emphasis should be placed on the need to promote sustainable development in rural areas.  A policy shift that neither the saved nor emerging local plan policy for the area had the benefited of being progressed against.  The lack of statutory objection from county highways from both a safety and sustainable perspective, along with no objection from the local flood authority would suggest the scheme offered a clear example of the scheme to be supported from a rural development perspective which would support services in the nearby village of Kirton.  The application had received limited public opposition reflecting the appropriateness of the development.  12 responses was low for such a type of application and notably two residents had supported the application citing the need to re-invigorate Kirton End.  Comments of KEROTD had been acknowledged.  In response to KERTOD’s late query in respect of the historic public right of way potentially being affected the site, ordinance survey showed no current such right of way and trespass by a member of their group onto the applicants land to take photographs under the cover of darkness appeared to suggest that they were indeed aware that there was no public right of access in place.  Members were urged to look favourably on the application.


It was moved by Councillor Tom Ashton and seconded by Councillor Paul Skinner that committee be minded to refuse the application in line with officer recommendation, subject to the proviso and reason contained therein;


Vote:      In Favour 9.        Against. 3.      Abstention:  1


RESOLVED:    That the application be refused in line with officer recommendation subject to the following proviso and reason.



To no adverse representations being received that raises additional issues which would warrant the reconsideration of the application. The time period for making representations expires on the 19th November 2018.



The application site is located outside of the settlement boundary of Kirton End as defined in the Boston Borough Local Plan and within an area defined as ‘countryside’. This development will extend the built up area of the village creating an awkward and alien encroachment within this flat, rural landscape. The development would also consolidate the surrounding urban environment with the existing residential and commercial development to the west and the resultant effect would substantially erode the character and appearance of the countryside and open rural landscape. This scheme will therefore promote an unsustainable pattern of development in this area and any benefits the development may provide relating to the supply of housing in the area and local economic benefits would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by its adverse effects. The application is therefore contrary to the objectives of Boston Borough Local Plan 1999 policies C01, G1 and G2, Policy 1 of the emerging South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 and the environmental dimension of sustainable development as contained within  the National Planning Policy Framework (2018).



Supporting documents: