Agenda item

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of terrace block of 5 three storey dwellings with new access and associated site works.

118 Church Road  Boston  PE21 0LG

Mrs B Orrey

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of terrace block of 5 three storey dwellings with new access and associated site works.

118 Church Road  Boston  PE21 0LG

Mrs B Orrey

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and advised Members that the visuals and letter from the applicant received after publication of the agenda pack, which Members confirmed they had received, were not a true reflection of the application and that the application as it was presented at the meeting that the Committee had to consider. 

The following representations, received following publication of the agenda pack, were reported to the meeting:

·         A letter of objection giving the grounds as insufficient parking in an overpopulated area and the danger to cyclists.

·         8 letters of support on the grounds that the proposal would improve the town; the design would tie together existing styles; development would remove an eyesore and stop trouble taking place; and approval of the contemporary design.

Mr J Cartwright then addressed the Committee and spoke in objection to the proposals on the following grounds:

·         Loss of privacy and sunlight to neighbours, whom he had discussed the proposals with, as the block would dominate neighbouring properties, especially the bungalows and properties on Windsor Close;

·         The site was too small and the proposed dwellings would have a negative impact, as they would be out of character in an area where none had flat roofs, all being two-storey with gable roofs, and permission for the site next door had been limited to 2-storey. 

·         Tandem parking was not ideal, particularly at this point where there was a bend on a busy road.

·         There was no objection to the redevelopment of the site, but the quality of this design would lower the standards of the area.

The applicant, Mrs B Orrey, then addressed the Committee and described her vision of the provision of low carbon properties with affordable housing.  This site had once been used as commercial premises and permission had been granted previously for a house in multiple occupation (HMO) to house nine people.  The site was an eyesore and security fencing had had to be erected.  The proposed dwellings were modern and would appeal to new buyers and encourage carbon neutral travel, with provision of electric vehicle charging points, bicycle stores and ability to walk to local facilities. 

Mrs Orrey asserted that everything had been done in line with the Committee’s wishes, including the use of traditional materials, alteration of the roof pitch and frames, and local traders and suppliers had been used.  The proposal would encourage more new ideas and would be a focal point in the same way as the new college building. 

The applicant’s agent, Mr C Wicks, shared the speaking time with the applicant and quoted views previously expressed by a Planning Officer dealing with the application, who had confirmed that the separation distances and the mass and scale of the proposals were acceptable, pointing out that there were ten terrace dwellings nearby of a greater width.  The design was modern; this was the way forward and it was unfortunate that the potential of the design had not been recognised. 

It was moved by Councillor Jonathan Noble and seconded by Councillor Brian Rush that the application be refused on the grounds of the previous reasons for refusal, in line with the Planning Officer’s recommendation, that it contravened Policy 2 (Development Management) and Policy 3 (Design of New Development) of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan and would not accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Following debate regarding the submission of late changes to the application, and the Growth Manager’s confirmation that these changes would need to be the subject of the due process of consultation before they could be considered, Members discussed deferring the application.

It was then proposed by Councillor Peter Bedford that the application be deferred in order that the amended application could be considered at a future meeting and this was seconded by Councillor Alison Austin. 

At this point, Councillor Brian Rush confirmed that he was withdrawing his support for the proposal to refuse planning permission in favour of deferring the application.  Councillor Paul Skinner then seconded the proposal to refuse planning permission. 

The proposal to defer the application was then taken as an amendment and was carried.

Vote: 11 for, 2 against.

The substantive motion to defer was then put to the vote.

Vote: 11 for, 2 against.

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred in order that the due process of consultation can be carried out on the amended application and considered at a future meeting.