Agenda item

Erection of 3 no. three storey apartment blocks consisting of 55 no. flats including some amenity facilities, following demolition of existing public house.

Former New Castle Inn and adjoining land on Lister Way  36 Fydell Street  Boston  PE21 8LF

Dhedhi Alrahim Trust.

Erection of 3 no. three storey apartment blocks consisting of 55 no. flats including some amenity facilities, following demolition of existing public house.

Former New Castle Inn and adjoining land on Lister Way 36 Fydell Street  Boston  PE21 8LF

Dhedhi, Alrahmin Trust

The Growth Manager presented the application and reported the 10 additional representations had been received since the publication of the agenda pack, objecting to the lack of car parking in the area and the ‘zero parking’ proposal within the application.

The applicant’s agent, Mr C Lilley, addressed the Committee saying this was a substantial vacant site that had been a long-standing eyesore.  It was in a perfect location for all amenities and transport links.  The high quality design, including landscaping and a private courtyard, would provide living accommodation of exceptional quality along with a number of affordable homes and a section 106 contribution, so adding to the rejuvenation of Boston. 

Mr Lilley stated that the site was in a highly accessible part of Boston.  No parking was proposed so as not to impede traffic flow; there would not be the conflict that a limited number of parking spaces could cause and there would be no junctions needed to exit the site.  The existing access would have removable bollards for refuse collection and other vehicles and they would be able to turn on the site without compromising highway safety.  Also, storage for scooters and cycles would be provided.  The Highway Authority fully supported the proposal. 

Councillor Paul Goodale, speaking as the Local Ward Member, considered the design and plan acceptable, but could not accept the proposal for zero parking provision, as the residents would certainly have cars and there was a significant level of illegal parking in the area already.  Councillor Goodale was also concerned about the adverse impact on the amenity of the area in terms of the overshadowing of neighbouring residential properties. 

During debate, other Members raised concerns regarding the size and scale of the proposal and the adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity, particularly overshadowing of the houses opposite, as well as concerns regarding inadequate bin storage and the flood risk sequential test not having been met. 

In particular, Members considered that, due to the ‘zero’ provision of parking on the site, the proposal would lead to a significant adverse impact on traffic congestion in an area already congested, as it was inevitable that the residents of the 55 proposed units would own cars. 

Members also commented on the scale of the development and the potential impact on the character of the area in relation to visual intrusion. References to the proposals being contrary to policies 2 and 3 of the Development Plan were made.

Some Members commented that the design was of good quality and the accommodation was much needed; that the scale of the proposal was acceptable and that parking was the only issue, with other developments recently approved having been required to provide parking spaces.  Other Members considered that zero provision of parking would not be problematic, that it was in keeping with the area and nearby under-utilised car parks would be used, and pointed out that no objections had been put forward by the Highway Authority. 

However, most Members considered that the proposal was not acceptable on the grounds of the adverse impact of zero parking provision and the scale of the proposal. 

It was then proposed by Councillor Paul Goodale and seconded by Councillor Jonathan Noble that planning permission be refused.

[Councillor Brian Rush left the meeting at 11.35 am]

The Committee then adjourned temporarily to allow the Growth Manager to formulate the wording of the reasons for refusal, which was then agreed.

Vote: 8 for, 4 against

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused, contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendations, on the following grounds:

1.    The proposal, by virtue of the lack of parking provision, would provide insufficient facilities for future residents and would be likely to exacerbate existing parking pressures within the area to an unacceptable degree. The proposals would therefore be contrary to policies 2, 3 and 36 of the Local Plan and the principles of sustainable development as advocated by the NPPF.

By virtue of its amount, scale, size and density, the development would result in a visually intrusive and dominant form of development having an adverse impact upon the character of the area, and the amenities of existing properties in the area (in particular those in Fydell Street by way of overshadowing), contrary to policies 2, and 3 of the Local Plan and the principles of good design and sustainable development as advocated by the NPPF.