Agenda item

Erection of 4 two storey residential dwellings and private access road leading from The Boundary following demolition of 73 & 73A Rosebery Avenue     

73, 73a & 75 Rosebery Avenue, Boston, PE21 7QR

Mr B H French

Erection of 4 two storey residential dwellings and private access road leading from The Boundary following demolition of 73 & 73A Rosebery Avenue

73, 73a & 75 Rosebery Avenue, Boston, PE21 7QR

Mr B H French.

The Growth Manager presented the report to committee and advised that the application had been subject to an amendment since its original submision which had been for 6 dwellings.  The application had been changed and was now submitted for 4 dwellings.

Furthermore two typograpical errors were highlighted within the report:

The first was on page 26 under 2.2 of the report which should read 67 and 79 Rosebery Avenue and not as stated within the report 67 and 75 Rosebery Avenue.

The second was on page 36 under paragraph 7.22 which should state plot 1 would sit behind 67 Rosebery Avenue and not 67 Sleaford Road.

Repesentation was received from Mr Bradley the applicant’s agent which included:

Confirmation that the application was to develop and existing site into 4 dwellings together with public access.  The existing dwellings were between  30 – 40 year old and had limited architectural merit and did not match the adjoining development.   It was served by vehicular access onto Rosebery Avenue which was only 3 metres wide and only capable of serving one dwelling.  The original application for 6 dwellings with access via The Boundary had been amended, following comments of local residents, to 4 dwellings.  Plot 1 would utilise the direct access to Rosebery Avenue with the remianing 3 dwellings accessing via the 4.1 metre wide road which was compliant with Highways guidelines.   Plot 1 was designed with a screen wall to the northern flank and would only be accessed by Rosebery Avenue.    The development matched half of the existing development and would be compliant with Enviornment Agency standing advice in respect of flood risk.  The design included sympathetic use of materials to ensure the development would blend with the adjoining dwellings and would meet current latest insulation standards and meet current energy performance targets.  The scheme would be connected to the existing foul sewerage system and be replaced with modern surface water system.   Finished floor levels were proposed to be 1m above existing ground to be compliant with current EA rating.  It was proposed to raise ground levels by an average of 450mm and grade down to existing ground levels. The surface water mamagement system would cope with surface water run-off comprising of an undergrond modular cell collection tank.   To mitigate the effect of surface water run-off french drains had been incorporated adjacent to the access road and in the rear gardens.   A construction management plan had been submitted to ensure all construction traffic would be confined to the existing direct access from Rosebery Avenue with no construciton traffic being allowed via The Boundary.   Committee were asked that should it grant the application if it could consider reducing the finished floor levels by 500mm which would have a positive effect in rspect of the height of the buldings and issues of over looking.  No objection had been received by either the Enviornment Agency in respect of flood risk, none from  Lincolnshire County Council Highways nor from the Black Sluice Drainage Board.

Representation was received from the ward member Councillor Stephen Woodliffe which included:

The ward member advised he would base his significant concerns and objections on the report and proceeded to address a significant number of points contained therein.  Committee were asked to note that decisions should ensure development would function well and add to the overall quality of the area over its’ lifetime of the development with permission being refused for developments of poor design which failed to take opportunity for improving character.   Referencing the 4 dwellings members were asked to recognise they were all large detached houses with Plot 1 which had a lounge with large folding door 4 metres from the fence and faced north which he felt was contrary to the national aim to carbon footprint which sought to make the most of Southerly sunshine by keeping heating costs down and in new builds living areas should not face north.  Concern also noted the size of the gardens and the privacy for the owners of the new homes.    Concern was further noted at street lighting and the potential of having to place lighting in private gardens; land contamination was further questioned along with the impact on residential amenity and the impact the development would have on existing residents and their enjoyment of their properties due to the size of the proposed dwellings and the construction period was also noted as being a cause for concern.     Referencing the site entrance members were advised it would be opposite no.2 The Boundary who had raised concerns about noise disturbance from vehicular traffic being only 3 metres from the residents’ bedroom.  Vehicle lights shining in the evening were also a cause from concern.    Members were asked to agree that the impact on the residents close to the junction as being significant in their consideration.   Referencing the 4 year indicated timescale for development of the construction, members were asked to agree that the suffering inflicted on resident for this timescale was unacceptable and that would generate significant levels of vehicular movements along the track between 67 and 70 Rosebery Avenue, there was also concern that construction traffic could use the Boundary.  Referencing the construction management plan committee were asked to agree it was lacking in a number of information including not identifying hours of working during the construction period. 

It was moved by Councillor Jonathan Noble and Seconded by Councillor Brian Rush that the application be refused contrary to officer recommendation as it contravened policies G1 and H3(2) of the NPPF.

Vote:    In Favour:  6.    Against:  5.      Abstention:  0

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

The siting of the proposed four dwellings to the rear of existing residential properties at The Boundary and Rosebery Avenue will be out of character with the pattern and form of development surrounding the application site.  Furthermore, the proposed development having regard to the distances from respective boundaries and rear elevations of neighbouring properties and the proposed locations of the first floor window serving habitable rooms will result in significant overlooking of neighbouring properties.  Collectively this will substantially erode the amenity, privacy and the living conditions of neighbouring residents.  The proposed development will therefore be contrary to the objectives of Boston Borough Local Plan 1999 Policies G1, H2 and H3(2| and paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018)

       Refused Drawing Numbers: 

§   Site plan/location plan ref 1827/3D

§   Type A houses ref 1827/1A

§   Type B houses ref 1827/2A

In determining this application the authority has taken account of the guidance in paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2108) in order to seek to secure sustainable development that improved the economic, social and environmental conditions of the Borough.

It is recorded that Councillor Stephen Woodliffe returned to the meeting at this point in the proceedings.