Agenda item

Outline permission for the construction of up to 5 dwellings, with all matters reserved (Layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping).

Blue Bungalow, Pode Lane, Old Leake, Boston, PE22 9NB

Mrs Margaret Dickings

Outline application with all matters (layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping) reserved for the construction of up to 5 dwellings

Blue Bungalow, Pode Lane, Old Leake, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE22 9NB

Mrs Margaret Dickings

The Growth Manager presented the report confirming that the application was a re-submission of the original application which had been presented to committee in September 2018.  The original application had been outline as was the current application.   The original application had been for up to 6 dwellings against the new application being up to 5 dwellings.

For information members were advised the original application was currently under appeal.   That application had been refused due to the potential number of dwellings; over development of the site and the cramped appearance which would arise.  (paragraph 3.1 of the report noted the full reasons of the refusal)

Members were advised that officers were suggesting an additional condition be attached to the recommendation stating that no more than five dwellings in total, including the existing dwellings if retained, shall be provided on the site.

Representation was received from the applicant’s agent Mr Stuart which included:

Mr Stuart stated that much of what he had to say was reiteration of the Officer’s presentation and points.  The previous application on the site had been refused at the September committee despite being recommended for approval by Mrs Hughes who also acted as the case officer in that instance.  This application had also been recommended for approval by a different case officer on this occasion and committee members would confirm both were highly expereinced planning officers who knew planning law and policy thoroughly and both recommendations had a sound basis.  The applicant had already lodged an appeal against the previous refusal, without wishing to appear beligerant should committee refuse the current application, the applicant would appeal that one too and the paperwork had already been done so it was a no brainer for them and should that be the case, the applicant would seek costs.  Referenceing the number of objections, Mr Staurt stated none were valid.  The application was only before committee after being called in by Councillor Pierpoint due to concerns relating to parking and highways issues, both of which were not valid matters for committee’s consideration.  The application was in outline with all matters reserved therefore parking arrangements remained to be determined.  Furthermore highways a relevant statutory consultee were satsified with that aspect of the proposal.  The previous application had not been refused on those grounds therefore to do so on this application would be inconsistent and insupportable at appeal.  The previous application was refused on the single ground of over development of the site resulting in a cramped appearance.  The current application was essentially of the same nature but the maximum quantum of the development had been reduced by 20%.  Statutory consultee responses remained the same and considered the proposal acceptable.  To introduce any new or additional reasons for refusal would be unsupportable.  The actual number of dwellings would be determined at reserved matters as would the form of the development.  The indicativr layout carried no weight in planning terms and simply allowed the officers to judge the development in easily recongisable terms.  It was not inconciveable that the reserved matters application may come forward for a single self build property, nor that the application could come forwarded for a maisonette or flats both having a lower footprint than the indicative layout.  The previous reason for refusal was also insupportable.  The quantum of development was flexible, the cramped appearance was not known and was subject to reserve matters.  Furthermore referencing the officer’s comments and the query on the hedge line, Mr Stuart stated it was probably fair to say it was more than just likely that the hedge would be removed. 

Representation was received from the Ward Member Councillor Barrie Pierpoint which included:

Confirming he was one of the Ward Members for Old Leake and Wrangle and that he knew the area very well Councillor Piepoint confirmed that he lived round the corner from the site.   He confirmed he was speaking on behalf of the residents and asked that committee consider the application very seriously.  The application only had a slight variation from the original with 5 dwellings and not 6 and Councillor Pierpoint confirmed he had not only visited the site again, but he had spoken with all the residents once more investigating all their issues in respect of the problems the development would create to the close knit area.  The new application showed 5 properties instead of 6 but residents all agreed it was still too cramped on a very small plot of land.  11 car parking spaces were proposed with 4 at one end of the corner which was sited very close to the edge of the road.  It would create a problem for the residents at 5 Pode Lane who would be subject to having vehicles to use their driveway to for residents to reserve in to to access the site and equally reverse again into the driveway to exit the site.  Neither option was acceptable nor safe. Should vehicles be approaching from the far end there was a 60mph traffic speed right up to the houses where it turned to 30mph:  vehicles would still be travelling at a high speed and in the dark should a car be reversing out of one of the four parking spaces, it would be an accident waiting to happen.   Vehicular access to the site would be seriously compromised including the safety of the road from the Pode Lane side which was the width of the Southfiled Lane junction and only wide enough for a single vehicle such as a car.  On one side there was an open dyke which could result in injury to both pedestrians and travellers due to the increase of vehicular access requirements in a very narrow road.  Further accidents could arise should cars be parked along the road by visitors / delivery services to the development as there was no space for non residents parking within the development.  When two cars met at a certain part on the road it would always be necessary for one of them to reverse to enable passing.  The narrow road could not cope with increased traffic.  In the evening there was no public lighting on Pode Lane after Southfield Junction, contrary to what has been stated in the application.  Increasing traffic on such a narrow road and a non protected waterway would create accidents.  The footpath in Pode Lane could become subject to being used by extra wide loads and accessibilty to the site was a major problem which could not be resolved  in a satisfactory manner, expecially with the proposed number of dwellings on such a very small site.  The application showed 11 car parking spaces with no opportunity for a turning point within the site, making it very difficult to manouevre.  The site would create major isues for local residents in respect of safety; congestion; parking issues; floodiong and a lot more including potential accidents.  Pode Lane was a flood risk area surrondined by dykes, some of which had already subsided.  A dyke ran at the back of the proposed site and further development would increse the risk of further subsidence. The site was not in keeping with the surroundings, it was out of character and it was too small to accommodate the number of proposed dwellings and would create additional pressure within an area already suffering with issues beyond their control. 

It was moved by Councillor Tom Ashton and seconded by Councillor Jonathan Noble:

That committee refuse the application, contrary to officer recommendation as the application contravened Policies G1, G2 and H3(2) of the Boston Borough Local Plan 1999 and paragraphs 122 and 127 of the NPPF 2018.

Vote:       In Favour    9.     Against    3.    Abstention    1

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

The proposed development would compromise, by virtue of the potential number of dwellings, an overdevelopment of the site, resulting in a cramped appearance incompatible with the spacious character of the locality. The development would result in an incongruous addition to the edge of village location. The proposal would be contrary to Policies G1, G2 and H3(2) (in relation to density) of the Boston Borough Local Plan 1999 and paragraphs 122 and 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.’

In determining this application the authority has taken account of the guidance in paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 in order to seek to secure sustainable development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the Borough.