Agenda item

Major – Full Planning Permission

 

Proposed residential developments for 200no. affordable dwellings and associated open space, parking and ancillary building to affordable housing provisions and means of access.

 

Land South of Wainfleet Road, Boston.

Proposed residential development for 200no. affordable dwellings

and associated open space, parking and ancillary building to

affordable housing provision and means of access

 

Land South of Wainfleet Road, Boston

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and confirmed that the application had been referred to planning committee by the Assistant Director for Planning to consider the matters of viability in connection with this site.

 

The application site was on the north-east edge of Boston, to the south of Wainfleet Road. It was 9.62 hectares in size with the land in agricultural use at the time of submission. To the north were the rear gardens of existing properties along Wainfleet Road. To the east, the site adjoined agricultural land, while to the south and west were drains, beyond which the rear gardens of properties on Sandringham Road, Princess Anne Road, Somersby Way and Somersby Gardens. The site was therefore enclosed by existing development on three sides. Trees and hedgerows were located to the north, west and south boundaries.

 

A field access currently existed providing access from Wainfleet Road into the site and adjoined agricultural land to the east. Additionally, a pedestrian access existed between the properties known as Romney and Jura on Wainfleet Road into the site. The application site was agricultural land and, according to the Borough wide DEFRA records, designated Grade 1. The site is within the Environment Agency Flood Risk Zone 3. The Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 2010 identifies the majority of the site having a Flood Hazard rating of ‘Danger for All’ and a ‘medium’ tidal flood probability.

 

The site had a depth from flooding for the 200-year event (2115) predominately in the range of just under to just over 1 metre.  There were no listed buildings, tree preservation orders or other statutory local landscape or other designations on the site. Within the vicinity but approximately 250 metres away is the Boston (Spilsby Road) Conservation Area, within which were some Grade 2 listed buildings. A designated bridleway exists between the junction of Somersby Way and Ashlawn Drive south to Blackthorn Lane. 

 

The proposal sought the erection of 200 affordable dwellings. The application included a single vehicular access off Wainfleet Road in the north-eastern corner of the site. With additional pedestrian accesses between Romney and Jura on Wainfleet Road, and in the southwest corner from the junction of Somersby Way and Tollfield Road.

 

Previous applications on the site had included B/17/0511 an outline application for proposed residential development of up to 200 no. dwellings and associated open space, parking and ancillary building to the affordable housing provision, with access to be considered which had been granted 4 October 2018 subject to a S.106 agreement securing, amongst other things, 20% affordable housing and contributions in connection with Health and Education.   B/21/0441 the application for the approval of reserved matters (Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale) following Outline Approval B/17/0511 for residential development of up to 200 no. dwellings which had been granted 22 December 2023 and   B/24/0242 an application under s73 for the variation of Condition 1 (Approved Plans) of permission B/21/0441 (Application for Approval of Reserved Matters (Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale) following Outline Approval B/17/0511 for residential development of up to 200 no. dwellings)  Variations to the approved Reserved Matters scheme to include a denser provision of housing within the context of the same layout plus an ancillary building.

 

The Senior Planning Officer referred to the supplementary agenda, including additional neighbour comments and the withdrawal of an objection by the Environment Agency.

 

He confirmed that the site would include the provision of 50 bungalows and a community building associated with them. He confirmed that the area to the bottom corner of the site was excluded. There were two social housing providers who were ready to be providers at the site and it was an allocated site. Unlike previously, there would be no market housing at the site, although some of the properties would be offered on a shared ownership basis.

 

The highways authority had requested further technical information about the footway and ghost right hand turn at the entrance to the site, which the Senior Planning Officer indicated was provided in the conditions.

 

The highways authority had requested a financial contribution of £300,000 for the provision of bus passes, which would equate to £1,500 per property but was not a request for funding for additional bus services, which was considered an unreasonable request. They had also requested £5,000 for travel plan monitoring, which was in the original section 106 agreement and contributions towards bus stop improvements. In relation to contributions, he confirmed that the NHS objected to the scheme.

 

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the history of applications, including the issues regarding the previous request for section 106 contribution funding of £1 million, which had now increased to just under £1.2 million.

 

The applicant had submitted viability appraisals to demonstrate that the application could not support contributions and in consequence, they seek approval without section 106 contributions in terms of health and education. The viability appraisal was explained, had been assessed independently and that assessment agreed with the figures. The Senior Planning Officer indicated that the developer profit in the assessment was lower than would have been typically expected.

 

The residual land value figure had been assessed against a benchmark land value figure. It was based on a standardised methodology, so it did not account for the amount that the developer actually paid for it and it was purely a calculation.

 

The Senior Planning Officer indicated that if the residual land value was less than the benchmark land value, then the proposal could not support the contributions. The assessment comes out as being less than the benchmark land value, so even without contributions, the conclusion was that the proposals on contribution were unviable.

 

The indicative drainage layout was outlined, along with confirmation that this was submitted as part of the reserved matters and had been resubmitted. The layout filters water down through attenuation ponds towards an Internal Drainage Board maintained drain at the bottom of the site.

 

There had been concerns raised since reserved matters regarding the potential for surface water to impact the rear of properties on Wainfleet Road. This had been flagged by residents and the Drainage Board and there had also been concerns raised about the fact that there was a drain along the west hand boundary that is excluded from the site area (and has consistently been excluded from the site area throughout the site history).

 

The drain on the west hand side was a riparian drain, so issues regarding maintenance and management of that existed outside of the application.

 

In relation to Wainfleet Road, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the planning authority would look to a condition that required details to be agreed so that it can be satisfied indicatively, including a filter drain. The authority would look at condition stage about whether that was sufficient and whether it required any broader amendment to the drainage scheme.

 

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that as this application was a full planning application, biodiversity net gain now applied (unlike the previous application). The ecologist was content that the baseline assessment was accurate and there were indicative details of how the applicant could achieve 10% on site or with offsite contributions or credits, but that did not affect the determination of this application.

 

Confirmation was provided that there would be harm to education provision and to the NHS because that was not being offset by the contributions. The planning authority’s view was that the benefits from the 200 houses outweighed that and ultimately that would be the main consideration for the planning committee. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there was the possibility that the properties would primarily be occupied by people within Boston already, who already access some of those services, but not necessarily in this immediate locality. The education impacts would be at secondary and sixth form level and not primary level.

 

Representation was received from Mr Chris Lindley, the agent for the applicant, who confirmed the planning history for the site. He confirmed that the proposal was fundamentally the same as what had been approved last year, albeit the sole purpose was now to secure the development as mixed tenure affordable housing. He advised that the applicant had worked with stakeholders and identified housing associations ready to proceed.

 

He outlined that there was an acute need for affordable housing in Boston, with over 1,700 households listed on the Council's housing register and many of these local people already rely upon local services, which will mitigate some of the requests for financial contributions made.

 

He confirmed that there would be homes for shared ownership and rent, suitable for families and older people and of varying sizes. Offsite highway improvements remained part of this proposal, along with open spaces which will be further enhanced now to provide biodiversity net gain.

 

Final technical approvals for highways and drainage were advancing with this process having commenced under previous approvals.

 

In relation to viability, he outlined that the delivery of the scheme, with its compelling benefits, comes at a cost. Commercial viability was a challenge. An assessment of viability had been considered by an independent specialist and it had been accepted that the scheme was not viable should financial contributions be levied. He indicated that the local plan allowed for situations like this and subject to a revised set of conditions, the unilateral undertaking to deliver the affordable housing and the baseline established by the previous approvals, he invited approval of the application.

 

In response to questions, Mr Lindley confirmed that the tenure mix would be approximately 25% shared ownership and 75% social rent and that 50 properties would be for later living.

 

Committee deliberation followed which included the following:

 

In relation to the dyke on the western boundary, concern was raised that this fell just outside the application site and clarification was sought about access to the dyke, its maintenance and the potential impact on existing properties on the other side of the dyke.

 

Deliberation also included concerns about the width of the access to the dyke to the western boundary being 5 metres rather than 9 metres and whether there was agreement about the precise nature of the riparian ownership.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the dyke had always been outside the site boundary, that it was not a dyke maintained by the Internal Drainage Board and that it was the responsibility of the landowner. Riparian ownership responsibilities would continue as before and were ultimately not a planning consideration.

 

The drainage layout shows that surface water will be fed to the attenuation ponds and then be piped down to the South, with the effect that any surface water runoff would accumulate within the red line and any surface water would not have a major impact on the dyke. There would also be a condition for a full drainage scheme to be provided and there had been no concerns raised by the Internal Drainage Board. The Assistant Director indicated that if the committee decided to approve the application, the clear message from the Committee was that the applicant needed to contact the Board to ensure that it could implement this decision as they saw fit.

 

There was deliberation about the absence of section 106 contributions and the viability appraisal having suggested that the development could not support them.

 

The Senior Planning Officer and Assistant Director indicated that the balance for the committee was whether the benefit for 200 affordable houses outweighed that potential harm to health and education as a result of there being no contribution on a site which had issues regarding viability. It was an allocated site within the 5-year housing land supply.

 

Deliberation occurred about increased traffic and pedestrian safety on the A52 and the Senior Planning Officer advised that these impacts had been considered at the outline application stage, that there would be off-site highways improvements including the ghost island right turn and the pedestrian footway along Wainfleet Road. In addition, condition 27 provided details for pedestrian access in the southwest corner.

 

In relation to roads, concerns had been raised by Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue that the road would not be constructed to a good enough standard to bear a fire engine and that the wheel washing facilities onto the A52 would not be adequate for a road which was already impacted by agricultural movements. The Senior Planning Officer indicated that the specification for the road was above what was typical and that it would be a matter between the Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue and highways regarding the adoptable standard to be used and a recommendation for fire hydrants was included in the application and although it was not included as a condition, it could be if that was what the committee decided.

 

There was a pre commencement plan to prevent mud being deposited onto the highway, which would typically include wheel washing.

 

Concern was raised about whether the application improved or changed the quality and character of the area. The Assistant Director indicated that there was an extant permission and a near identical design and layout plan had previously been approved.

 

In summary, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that the 5 metre easement only applied to the southern boundary (where there were no properties within 9 metres in any event) and the Drainage Board had suggested similar for the western boundary albeit that it was not a Drainage Board dyke. As this fell outside the site, it would be looked at via conditions but the Drainage Board had not raised any issues. Additional information about the ownership of the dyke could not be requested as it fell outside of the site and would be maintained by the landowner. There was a condition which required detail for the drainage scheme and its maintenance to be agreed.

 

In terms of road standard, there was a condition that the road was to be built to adoptable standard and would be maintained privately but the central access road and the spur to the south appeared to be adoptable standard acceptable to Lincolnshire County Council. He indicated that Fire and Rescue want something that can support vehicles above that standard but it was above the technical detail which the planning authority would ask for in the same way that the planning authority would not seek technical detail for the footway or ghost right turn – they are not standard technical details that would be included, as they would be a matter for the local highways authority.

 

RESOLVED:

 

The application was not passed and an alternative motion for deferral was approved.

 

Following the motion to defer and before the vote, the Legal Officer clarified the grounds on which the application would be deferred:

 

1)    Clarification in relation to 9 metre easement issue.

2)    Ownership of the dyke.

3)    Road standard being of sub-standard condition in the context of the comments made by Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue.

4)    The development not in keeping with the area.

 

It is recorded that Councillor Suzanne Welberry absented from the meeting at this part in the proceedings in line with her declaration on interest in respect of the following item of business.

 

Councillor Alison Austin also left the meeting at this point.