Outline Application with al matters reserved (Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and scale) for the erection of a two-storey domestic dwelling.
Land to the rear of La Vern
Mr John Burton
Outline Application with all matters reserved (Access, Appearance,
Landscaping, Layout and Scale) for the erection of a two-storey
Land at the rear of La Vern, Washdyke Lane, Kirton Meeres,
Boston PE20 1PP
Mr John Burton
The Deputy Development Manager presented the report confirming that it had been called in by the Ward Member Councillor Ralph Pryke stating he felt the reasons given for the recommendations to refuse the application to be grossly unfair, with numerous other applications having been granted within the locality. Almost all residents living outside of the town needed a vehicle to carry out essential tasks and almost no applications in the area to the south of Boston could demonstrate a sequential test.
The application site was part of a pasture field, located on the western side of Drainside North, Kirton which was a narrow, rural road without footways or street lighting and was subject to a 60pmh speed limit. The site was located in the countryside but within a group of three existing dwellings, two of which had extensive curtilages (a substantial part of which was in equestrian use and contained paddocks, menage, stable and storage buildings). The application sought outline planning permission with all matters reserved and the application form identified was that the dwelling would have two bedrooms and two-storeys. The site was in open countryside and officers had determined that it had not been demonstrated that the proposal was necessary to the location or that it would meet the sustainable development needs of the area and as such the proposal is contrary to Policy 1. Furthermore the site was located within Flood Zone 3 of the Environment Agency Maps and within the ‘more vulnerable’ flood risk vulnerability category and a successfully completed Sequential Test had not been provided.
Representation was received by Mr. Goldsmith in objection to the application which included:
Advising his main concern was in respect of overlooking, Mr. Goldsmith stated that he felt his horses could be affected by the noise from the proposed dwelling, due to its proposed location 2 metres from the fence. He stated that whilst the proposed house would not overlook his house, it would overlook stables and menage. Concern was also tabled in respect of accessing the proposed site when there was insufficient room to turn a car around, and a suggestion was made that the location of the proposed build be relocated to an area within the site which was 17m wide and from where the applicant would have views over their own land and not over his equestrian facilities. Committee were further advised that the post code for the application was recorded incorrectly and should read PE20 1PE.
No significant questions were asked of Mr. Goldsmith just points of clarification on the site plan provided.
Representation was received from the applicant Mrs. Sarah Burton which included:
Advising she would address the objections raised, Mrs. Burton stated that the current menage facility within the objectors’ site was unused and was overgrown with grass and weeds, and had old pallets and ironworks lying on it. She further noted that when the menage had been granted planning permission, it had been for private use only and not business use. Members were asked to recognise that the application was only in outline and all matters relating to the best location on the site, build materials to keep it within the current street scene and any screening matters could all be addressed to be compliant in keeping with the village. Addressing other issues of objection Mrs. Burton stated that visitors to the site would park within the site – not on the highway; to the best of her knowledge she had no recollection of any nearby properties flooding and the impact in respect of a loss of view would be minimal. Members were further advised that the existing property had been purchased under ten years ago, Mrs. Burton had realised that should the need to downsize arise in the future, by having a gated entrance then a further property could be built within the grounds and they could move to that new property and pass he existing build to family members.
No questions were tabled of Mrs. Barton
Representation was received from Cllr Pryke which included:
Referencing the flood risk identified as a reason not to grant the application, Councillor Pryke stated that virtually all areas to the south of Boston were in flood zones 2 or 3 and should the rule by applied strictly then nothing would get built. However, developers quite often got around that issue by ‘building up’ especially around the Kirton area in larger developments. There were existing properties around the site which had been subject to planning permission at some point and had been granted.
Members were asked to note it was not a speculative application, unlike some within the area which had been built and priced at the market for those living within the south of the Country. This was a considered outline application, enabling change to be made to the final application and one which would allow the owners of the existing building on the site, to down size and enable members of their family to move to the existing dwelling.
Cllr Pryke referenced the need for a vehicle at the site and noted that everyone south of Boston had access to one or two vehicles, although residents within the area did cycle to the facilities at Kirton. Committee were asked to agree that the need for a car should not be a reason for objection. Councilor Pryke further stated he felt the land to be equivalent to a brownfield site
No questions were tabled of Councillor Pryke who left the meeting at this part in the proceedings.
Prior to moving into deliberations the Chairman invited the Assistant Director – Planning and Strategic Infrastructure to address any of the comments received during representation:
Members were advised that the site was not a brownfield site and committee needed to discard that comment, it was classified as a greenfield site in the countryside. Existing dwellings on the site would have been subject to the local plans in place at the time of their application, and would have been compliant with those plans at the time to have enabled the building of the houses. The application had not been presented clearly as a personal circumstance application and committee had to determine the application as received, even though they could take on board what had been said and give it the appropriate consideration. However, committee must be mindful that there was nothing to say the situation could change in time. The Council could not ignore the requisite for a sequential test and had to weigh the submitted test in the planning balance as presented. The test presented within the application was not sufficient enough, to enable officers to say it was officially comprehensive to pass or fail.
Members were reminded that the Local Plan had gone through independent testing with a hierarchy of a sustainable town, large villages and then smaller settlements reliant on larger settlements for facilities. It did no encourage development in the countryside.
Committee deliberation followed which included:
Concern was noted that the site was greenfield and not brownfield as had been suggested by the ward member. Further concerns also noted that should committee decide to grant the application it would be setting a precedent moving forward, whereby it would find it difficult to refuse any similar application on land within the countryside. Sympathy was tabled for the applicant who members recognised was just trying to build something on their own land for a potential member of their familiy, but the committee had a responsibility to protect the countryside and had to abide by the process in place to do so.
It was moved by Councillor Anne Dorrian and seconded by Councillor Claire Rylott that committee refuse the application in line with officer recommendation for the reason therein
Vote: In Favour: 12 Against: 0 Abstention: 1
That the committee refuse the application in line with officer recommendation for the following reasons: