Borough of Boston

Boston Borough Council Chief Executive PHIL DRURY

MCIAT, ACIOB

Municipal Buildings Boston Lincolnshire PE21 8QR Tel: Tel 01205 314226 Fax:

My ref: LH/KR/Planning

Please ask for: Karen Rist, Democratic Services Officer (Direct number Tel 01205 314226) Monday 8 October 2018

NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE Dear Councillor

You are invited to attend a meeting of the Planning Committee

on Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 10.00 am

in the Committee Room, Municipal Buildings, West Street, Boston, PE21 8QR

PHIL DRURY Chief Executive Chairman: Councillor David Brown Vice Chair: Councillor Sue Ransome Councillors: Alison Austin, Peter Bedford, Michael Cooper, James Edwards, Jonathan Noble, Stephen Raven, Brian Rush, Claire Rylott, Paul Skinner, Yvonne Stevens and Stephen Woodliffe

Note(s) for Members of the Committee:

In order to vote on a planning application committee Members must be present for the entire presentation and discussion on the item. When an official site visit is undertaken which forms part of the decision making at Committee, only Members who have attended the site visit and received full representation will be able to debate and decide the application.

Members of the public are welcome to attend the committee meeting as observers

except during the consideration of exempt or confidential items.

THIS MEETING WILL BE RECORDED (SOUND ONLY)

Public Document Pack

AA GG EE NN DD AA

PART I - PRELIMINARIES

A APOLOGIES

To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitutes (if any).

B MINUTES

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

1 - 20

C DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

To receive declarations of interests in respect of any item on the agenda.

D PUBLIC QUESTIONS

To answer any written questions received from members of the public no later than 5 p.m. two clear working days prior to the meeting – for this meeting the deadline is 5 p.m. on Thursday 11 October 2018

PART II - AGENDA ITEMS

1 PLANNING APPLICATION B 18 0017

Front Extension and alterations to roof at rear of garage building and Change of Use of former dairy room/creamery and other outbuildings along with associated land and existing paddock are to special needs school (Class 1D).

The Coach House Hall Lane Algarkirk Boston PE20 2HG

Ms Darryll Loizou

21 - 44


Application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval B 14 0165 for the construction of a drive-thru coffee shop (mixed use compromising class A1 and class A3) plus internal roadway, parking area and associated development to make changes to the operation hours.

Plot B The Quadrant Land off A16 Wyberton Boston PE21 7TD

Mr Burney Burney Estates Ltd

45 - 56


Application for approval of reserved matters for the construction of retail unit (mixed use compromising class A3 and A5) and drive-thru restaurant (mixed use compromising class A1 and class A3), plus internal roadway, parking area and associated development.

Plot A The Quadrant Land off A16 Wyberton Boston PE21 7TD

Mr Burney Burney Estates Ltd

57 - 68


Erection of showroom for sales and display of bathroom equipment and associated merchandise (Class A1) plus new car park and associated development.

Land south of Wallace Way The Quadrant Wyberton Boston PE21 7TD

Parkland Developments

69 - 86


Proposed erection of 1 no. two and a half storey dwelling, extended vehicular access and a new vehicular access.

Land to rear of 29 Woodville Road Boston PE21 8AP

Mr S Penson Habitat Residential Ltd THIS MEETING WILL ADJOURN AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCEEDINGS

AND RECONVENE AT 2PM

87 - 98


Siting of a portakabin to provide office and kitchen area for a temporary 3 year period.

Drayton Motors The Drayton Swineshead Boston PE20 3JN

Wilson and Co. (Kia) Ltd

99 - 106


Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of terrace block of 6 no. three store houses with new access and associated site works.

118 Church Road Boston PE21 0LG

Mrs B Orrey

107 - 130


Outline planning application for erection of 2 detached dwelling houses with details of access with all other matters reserved.

Land adjacent to Holly House 84 Causeway East Wyberton Boston PE21 7AR

Mr and Mrs D Bell.

131 - 144

9 APPEALS REPORT

A report by the Growth Manager

145 - 154

10 PLANNING APPLICATION VALIDATION CHECKLIST

A report by the Growth Manager

155 - 204

11 DELEGATED DECISION LIST

205 - 236

Note: A planning decision comes into effect only when the decision notice and associated documents are despatched by the Local Planning Authority and not when the Committee makes its decision.

Notes: The Human Rights Act 1998 It is implicit in these reports that the recommendations to and the consideration by Committee will take into account the Council’s obligations arising out of the Human Rights Act and the rights conferred by Articles 6,8,14 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These are the rights to a fair hearing, respect for family and private life, the prohibition against discrimination and the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, respectively. The ECHR allows many to be overridden if there is a sufficiently compelling public interest. In simple terms the Act requires a person’s interest be balanced against the interests of the community. This is something that is part of the planning system and that balancing is a significant part of the consideration of issues identified to Committee by officer reports. Provided that those issues are taken into account, the Convention will be satisfied.

The person to contact about the agenda and documents for this meeting is Karen Rist, Democratic Services Officer, Municipal Buildings, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 8QR, Tel 01205 314226, e-mail: [email protected]. Council Members who are not able to attend the meeting should notify Karen Rist, Democratic Services Officer as soon as possible giving the name of the Council Member (if any) who will be attending the meeting as their substitute. Alternative Versions Should you wish to have the agenda or report in an alternative format such as larger text, Braille or a specific language, please contact Democratic Services on direct dial (01205) 314226

Emergency Procedures

In the event of a fire alarm sounding all attendees are asked to leave the building via

the nearest emergency exit and make their way to the Fire Assembly Point located in

the car park at the rear of the Municipal Buildings.

This page is intentionally left blank

PLANNING COMMITTEE

18 SEPTEMBER 2018

Present:

Chairman: Councillor David Brown

Vice-Chairman:

Councillor Sue Ransome

Councillors: Tom Ashton, Alison Austin, Peter Bedford, Michael Cooper, Jonathan Noble, Felicity Ransome, Stephen Raven, Brian Rush, Paul Skinner, Yvonne Stevens and Stephen Woodliffe

Officers: Development Manager, Legal Officer Planning, Senior Planning Officer, Democratic Services Officer, Head of Place and Space and Planning Officer

1 APOLOGIES

Prior to the clerk tabling apologies for absence Councillor Brain Rush addressed the committee meeting and the following is a verbatim minute of what Councillor Rush said the response made by the Chairman: Councillor Rush: ‘I do apologise for interjecting you have just this moment made the point I have to say very kindly, about the recording system in this particular forum if you like. It is very important the planning meeting is recorded and it is recorded accurately. I have to be honest and say that if it is anything like the BTAC meeting the other day and I want you to assure me today that everything will be recorded, that the recording for BTAC was a disgrace on this particular plug. I have asked the Council for a copy and I tell you now it is not an accurate copy. Mr Chairman I wish that you would now advocate that the thing is done properly; looked into and recorded so that the public do have a proper and complete record of the proceedings of this meeting. Chairman: Thank you Councillor Rush obviously a BTAC meeting is different to a Planning Meeting..... Councillor Rush: I am referring to the process and not the context just the process. Chairman: Very well but the meetings have always been recorded and Councillor Rush: Not very well Chairman: Well I have no evidence of that and I assure you that the meeting is sound recorded and up to date this has not been a problem. Councillor Rush: I rest my case. Chairman: If you have identified a problem in the past then please come and see me or go and see the Chief Executive. Thank you. END

Apologies for absence were tabled by Councillor James Edwards with Councillor Felicity Ransome substituting and by Councillor Claire Rylott with Councillor Tom Ashton substituting. Apologies were also tabled by Councillor Yvonne Stevens with no substitute member.

Page 1

Agenda Item B

Planning Committee 18 September 2018

2 MINUTES

The Development Manager addressed the committee prior to the Chairman signing the minutes with an update to an item contained within the said minutes: Member’s were referenced to page 15 of the minutes and advised that it was not a correction as such but that it related to the Middlegate Road application where members had voted in favour of the application with a number of additional conditions requested. Following the meeting liaison had taken place with the agent in respect of the proposed conditions, particularly the ones which related to flood risk and the wording of the conditions that would be attached to the reserved matters application. Committee were reminded that a condition could not be attached to a reserved matters application that was contrary to one amended or attached at outline. As such the agent advised they would be looking to submit a non-material amendment or a variation of condition application, to amend the outline to allow the Council to be able to seek what members had required under the reserved matters application in terms of conditions. That would be dealt with as part of the outline application and that decision would be issued, subject to being acceptable of course, and going through the necessary consultation. The decision on the reserved matters could then be issued. It was a process that needed to be undertaken to allow the reserved matters application to be issued. With the permission of the committee the Chairman proceeded to sign the minutes of the previous meeting. 3 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Standing declarations of interests are tabled in respect of: Councillors Alison Austin; Paul Skinner and Tom Ashton as Members of Lincolnshire County Council. Councillors David Brown, Michael Cooper and Sue Ransome as Members of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan and Councillor Alison Austin as a County Council Member of that Committee. Councillors Peter Bedford and Michael Cooper as the Council’s representatives on the internal drainage boards.

Councillor Stephen Woodliffe declared he had a clear conflict of interest in respect of planning application B 18 0092, due to his significant history in a variety of roles associated with Boston Grammar School which was subject to a potential Section 106 contribution within that application. He advised he would absent from the meeting.

Councillor Sue Ransome declared that whilst she had been in attendance at Kirton Parish Council when planning application B 18 0226 had been discussed on two separate occasion she had not taken part in any discussion at either time and as such felt able to determine the application at committee.

Councillor Tom Ashton declared that it was his intent to speak as Ward Member on planning application B 18 0296 and as such he would absent from the committee for that item. He further declared that whilst he was one of two Ward Members for planning application B 17 0533 he had held no discussions in respect of the application with any other party and as such felt able to sit and determine the application. Councillor Michael Cooper declared that he was the Ward Member for planning application B 18 0092 he had not been party to any discussions in respect of the application and was

Page 2


able to determine the application. Councillor Cooper then further declared that he would absent from planning application B 18 0296 as he had been involved in considerable discussions with third parties in respect of the application. Councillor Brian Rush declared that he had been lobbied in respect of planning application B 18 0226 but had not responded nor commented and able to determine the application. Councillor Rush further declared that Mr Giles Crust in attendance to make representation to committee was known to him. Councillor David Brown declared he was conflicted in respect of planning application B 18 0092 in that the application site was adjacent to his own property and confirmed he would absent from the meeting. 4 PUBLIC QUESTIONS

No public questions were tabled. It is recorded that Councillors David Brown and Stephen Woodliffe absented from the meeting at this part in the proceedings.

With the Chairman absent the following item was chaired by the Vice Chairman Councillor Sue Ransome.


Outline application with some matters reserved (layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for later approval) for the erection of up to 96 no. dwellings, public open space, attenuation pond, and associated infrastructure (access only to be considered)

Land to the north of Wigtoft Road, Sutterton, Boston, PE20 2EQ

Lincolnshire County Council

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and confirmed that a written submission of representation had been received by Mr Robinson of 9 Blows Lane which had been circulated to committee ahead of the meeting and confirmed that resulted in 17 letters of representation being received in total. Members were reminded that the additional representation was a material consideration in determination of the application. A further update to the report was noted and members were referred to page 33 of the report – point 8.20. The affordable housing figure should read 11 and not 22 as noted. RReepprreesseennttaattiioonn wwaass rreecceeiivveedd iinn oobbjjeeccttiioonn ttoo tthhee aapppplliiccaattiioonn bbyy MMrr RRoobbiinnssoonn wwhhiicchh iinncclluuddeedd::

Stating that his detailed objection was already made public Mr Robinson stated that he maintained they were still relevant against the revisions submitted by the agenda and applicant that indicated no in-depth resolution of the problems affecting the site and local area including issues in respect of drainage. Referencing the proposal for 96 homes Mr Robinson stated members needed to consider it with the 23 new homes already agreed in the area which would result in 119 homes on the actual site. Concern was noted that the proposal relied on argument seeking to bypass existing policies, adopted measure and strategies which although out-of-date offered a democratic framework which was the civilised way of proceeding. Noting the danger of urban sprawl and the adverse affect the development would have should it be granted, members were asked to note that the

Page 3


application failed to address scale and ignored severe drainage problems. There was no demonstrated local employment need for the development which would overwhelm a fragile village infrastructure. Concern was further noted that the development would set a precedent for a pattern of unsustainable development outside the village boundary which would prove difficult to refuse further such applications by local land owners. Referring to the applicant Mr Robinson stated that they could not lay claim to consideration not otherwise available to other applicants and needed to adhere to the same rules as everyone else. In conclusion members were advised Mr Robinson felt the application to have no integrity and to be opportunist; undemocratic and unprecedented. RReepprreesseennttaattiioonn wwaass rreecceeiivveedd bbyy tthhee aaggeenntt MMss.. SSwwiinnbbuurrnnee wwhhiicchh iinncclluuddeedd::

Thanking the committee for the opportunity to make representation and the officer’s for their assistance in producing the scheme, Ms. Swinburne noted that as with many Council’s, Lincolnshire County Council owned land which had previously been rented out for farming or used by the council itself, which it was now considering selling off to produce income and in some cases to encourage residential development to help meet the need for housing. The application site had been chosen because of its location on the edge of Sutterton which had been identified as a mains service centre where the principle of growth was generally supported. A site that included part of the application site was included within the emerging local plan as a reserved site for housing which helped to demonstrate that growth in that part of the village was an acceptable principle. It was however recognised that the larger site in the ownership of the County Council presented an opportunity to make significant contributions through the local area. Members were advised contributions requested included provision for housing for sale on the open market but 15 affordable homes as well. Financial contributions of £42k were required for the surgery in Sutterton along with more than £575k proposed to go towards education to included a new classroom at Sutterton Academy, a science laboratory at the Thomas MIddlecote School and a new sports hall at Boston Grammar School. The needs had been identified by needs assessments by Boston Council, The education authority and the NHS. Contributions of such scale were only possible due to the amount of housing submitted in the application: smaller sites simply would not attract the same level of funding. The illustrated layout confirmed that the site was large enough to accommodate a significant amount of open space along with children’s play area and equipment: as such the proposed development represented a sustainable option to growth contributing 96 new homes, 15 of which would be affordable.

RReepprreesseennttaattiioonn wwaass rreecceeiivveedd bbyy PPaarriisshh CCoouunncciilllloorr JJoohhnn FFiittcchheetttt wwhhiicchh iinncclluuddeedd::

Members were advised that Sutterton Parish Council unanimously objected to the application and believed it was undeliverable in a village already stretched with ongoing developments. Anglian Water had stated there was too much sewerage in the area and they could not cope with it. The area was susceptible to flooding issues; the entrance to the proposed site was on a dangerous corner of a road which was already subject to speeding problems and the site if built would generate a significant increase in vehicles. Furthermore the site was grade A arable land and as such should not be built on.

Following deliberation the Legal Officer provided members with the following points of information: Referencing concern in setting a precedent members’ were reminded that each application was determined on its own merits and in line with the SELLP that would assist in built-up area boundaries going forward. Referencing comments in respect of Anglian Water the officer state he recognised that drainage issues were significant and did need to be dealt with correctly, however it was a statutory requirement on the statutory undertakers such as Severn Trent Water to provide a solution to construction. Should members grant the

Page 4


application there was already a condition which required any developer to go to the statutory undertaker tabling their proposal and asking how they would deal with it satisfactorily. It was moved by Councillor Michael Cooper and seconded by Councillor Jonathan Noble that

the application be refused contrary to officer recommendation because it was contrary to the objectives of Boston Borough Local Plan 1999 Policies C01, G1, G2 and H3, the environmental and social dimensions of sustainable development as contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2018).

Vote: In favour: 10. Against: 0 Abstention: 0 RESOLVED: That the Planning Committee refuse the planning application contrary to officer recommendation for the following reasons:

1. The application site is located along the western edge of the settlement boundary, outside the village envelope of Sutterton as defined in the Local Plan and within an area defined as ‘countryside’. This development will extend the built up area of the village to the west and into open countryside with the loss of high quality grade 1 agricultural land, creating an awkward and alien encroachment within this flat, rural landscape. The development would also consolidate the urban environment and the resultant effect would substantially erode the character and appearance of the area. The development will also substantially erode the amenity of neighbouring residents. This scheme will therefore promote an unsustainable pattern of development in this area and any benefits the development may provide would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by its adverse effects. The application is therefore contrary to the objectives of Boston Borough Local Plan 1999 Policies C01, G1, G2 and H3, the environmental and social dimensions of sustainable development as contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and the vision as set out in the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 within ‘Our Vision’.

Refused Drawing Numbers:

Location plan ref LNBU 370338-01B (1/2) Proposed illustrative site plan ref LNBU 370338-03G (2/2)

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.

It is recorded that Councillors David Brown and Stephen Woodliffe rejoined the meeting at this part in the proceedings with Councillor David Brown resuming his role as Chairman for the remainder of the meeting. 6 PLANNING APPLICATION B 18 0300

Outline planning application for the construction of two houses with all matters reserved

Land adjacent to Excessive, Homers Lane, Freiston, Boston, PE22 0PA

Mr W Dowse

Page 5


The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and confirmed that there were updates to the report tabled.

1. Referencing page 54 of the report members were advised that under the heading consultations it should read Freiston Parish Council that had raised no objections and not Butterwick as noted.

2. Referencing page 61 of the report members were advised that following updates with the Environment Agency condition 6 which related to flood risk. Following discussion with the environment agency a slab level of 1m above ground level had now been agreed instead of the no habitable accommodation at ground level restriction, as defined in that condition. It had been agreed that the recommended condition was unreasonable and impractical.

RReepprreesseennttaattiioonn wwaass rreecceeiivveedd ffrroomm tthhee aaggeenntt MMrr CCrruusstt wwhhiicchh iinncclluuddeedd::

Committee were referenced to the officer’s comment in that the crux of the matter was planning application B 18 0056 identified in the appeal notice attached. Mr Crust confirmed he felt officer had taken the correct view to recommend the application in line with the appeal. Referencing paragraph 8.4 it stated that application concurred with policies G1 and H3 of the local plan whilst also meeting the objectives of the SELLP and NPPF. No material objections had been raised only remarks at the design all of which would be dealt with at a later stage. Neighbour concerns about the height of the property had been addressed in the change of the slab level. Point 1.18 of the report stated the type of development accorded with the SELLP para. 78. Members were further asked to agree that it would be a more efficient use of the land to have residential use as against the existing car park usage. Referencing application B 17 0056, Mr Crust reminded members that the application had been turned down by committee but granted at appeal. Officer’s appeared to be suggesting that should the application be turned down the outcome would probably be the same.

It was moved by Councillor Alison Austin and seconded by Councillor Paul Skinner that the

application be granted in line with officers recommendation; subject to the conditions and

reasons therein and subject to the amendment to condition 6.

VOTE: In Favour: 12. Against: 0. Abstentions: O

RESOLVED: That the application be granted in line with officer recommendation and subject to the following conditions and reasons:

1. No development shall commence until details of the layout, access, appearance,

landscaping and scale of the development (hereafter referred to as the 'reserved matters') have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: This is an outline application only and such details must be approved before development commences in order to comply with the objectives of Local Plan policies G1 and H3 and required to be imposed pursuant to Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning

Authority not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Page 6


3. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.


4 No development shall commence above slab level until a foul water strategy has

been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwellings shall be occupied until the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved foul water strategy.

Reason: In the interests of satisfactory drainage and to accord with the objectives of Local Plan policies G3.

5 No development shall commence above slab level until a surface water strategy has

been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwellings shall be occupied until the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved surface water strategy.

Reason: In the interests of satisfactory drainage and to accord with the objectives of Local Plan policies G3.

6 The development hereby approved shall incorporate the following flood risk mitigation

measures:

The development shall be a minimum of two storey.

Finished first floor levels shall be set a minimum of 1m above existing ground level.

Flood resilient construction shall be a height of 3000mm above the predicted flood depth.

Demountable flood barriers to a height of 600mm above finished floor levels shall be fitted on all external doorways.

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants and accord with the objectives of Local Plan policies G1 and H3 and the National Planning Policy Framework (2018).


Outline planning application to erect single dwelling house and paddock with details of access, with all other matters relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved

Leyland, 322A Willington Road, Kirton End, Boston, PE20 1NR

Mr and Mrs C Fountain The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and confirmed that a written submission with two letters had been submitted following issue of the agenda which had been circulated to all committee members ahead of the meeting. Both letters were to be considered as material consideration in the determination of the application.

RReepprreesseennttaattiioonn wwaass rreecceeiivveedd iinn ssuuppppoorrtt ooff tthhee aapppplliiccaattiioonn ffrroomm MMrrss PPiittttss wwhhiicchh iinncclluuddeedd::

Members were advised that Mrs Pitts had resided in the area very close to the application site for 38 years during which time she had witnessed the application site in commercial use which had been totally incompatible with the area. The site had become very noisy and

Page 7


untidy commercial site with unsuitable large lorries which did cause great concern visiting the site on a very regular basis via a very poor access for such vehicles. Local residents had to contend with bonfires; vermin; neglect and the whole site ended up being an eyesore. Mrs Pitts confirmed that she had not known Mr and Mrs Fountain when they purchased the site and stressed that the reason for her attendance and representation was that they had made such a tremendous difference to the lives of both herself and other neighbours. The site was now a green and attractive outlook and the transformation was amazing. Many residents shared the opinion that the development of one house on the site would only benefit the area and the community with another young family instead or another unsuitable commercial activity in the middle of a residential area.

RReepprreesseennttaattiioonn wwaass rreecceeiivveedd ffrroomm tthhee aaggeenntt MMrr CCrruusstt wwhhiicchh iinncclluuddeedd::

Having heard from the neighbours all supporting the application to improve their amenity, members were asked to agree that the site was not in open countryside and was a near mirror image of the previous application and appeal on the application B 17 0056. The site was brownfield, previously developed land that still had permission for agricultural usage: it was however in totally the wrong place for such use. The applicant was local and wanted to build one family home: the applicant was not a speculative builder. Mr Crust asked that members agree four points for granting the application. The first being that the site was surrounded by residential development; secondly due to the shortfall in the Council’s housing allocation – thirdly in line with the appeal granted in the previous application and finally although not planning policy, it was natural justice. It was moved by Councillor Paul Skinner and seconded by Councillor Tom Ashton that the

application be granted contrary to officer recommendation as the application accords with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and due to the Council’s lack of 5-year housing land supply, the support for the development by local residents would support services in nearby villages.

VOTE: In Favour: 10. Against: 2. Abstentions: O

RESOLVED: That the application be granted contrary to officer recommendation for the following reasons:

1. No development shall commence until details of the layout, appearance, landscaping and scale of the development (hereafter referred to as the 'reserved matters') have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: This is an outline application only and such details must be approved before development commences in order to comply with the objectives of Boston Borough Local Plan 1999 policies G1 and H3 and required to be imposed pursuant to Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.


3. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

Page 8



4. With regard to the access to the site only, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans;

Site location plan and existing block plan ref J1628-PL-01 rev A01 (1/2) Proposed site plan ref j1628-pl-02 rev A02

Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved details and to accord with Adopted Local Plan Policy G1.

5 No development shall commence above slab level until a surface water strategy has

been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwellings shall be occupied until the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved surface water strategy.

Reason: In the interests of satisfactory drainage and to accord with the objectives of Boston Borough Local Plan 1999 Policy G3.

6. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk

Assessment (FRA) dated June 2017 prepared by AF Architecture including the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:

Raised finished floor level at least 500mm above ground level Demountable flood barriers to a height of 600mm above finished

floor levels to be fitted on all external doorways Flood resilient construction techniques shall be incorporated to a

minimum height of 300mm above predicted flood depths

The mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to occupation and subsequently maintained.

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants and to accord with the objectives of Boston Borough Local Plan 1999 Policies G1 and H3 and the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) 7 No more than one dwelling shall be constructed on the application site.

Reason: To define this permission, in the interests of the amenity of The area and to accord with the objectives of Boston Borough Local Plan 1999 Policy G1. In determining this application the authority has taken account of the guidance in paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and considers that due to the Council’s lack of 5-year housing land supply, the support for the development by local residents and whilst Kirton End is a smaller settlement, the additional dwelling will support services in nearby villages.

It is recorded that Councillor Tom Ashton absented from the committee at this point in the proceedings. 8 PLANNING APPLICATION B 18 0296

Page 9


Erection of side extension to existing stables, detached timber hay barn, access road, and retention of static caravan for non-residential use.

Seven Acres, Skipmarsh Lane, Old Leake, Boston, PE22 9LR

Mr B E Nuttgens The Senior Planning Officer presented the report noting the following updates:

1. Referencing the representation received under paragraph 5 on page 94 members were advised that two letters in support of the application had been received from the occupier of no.1 Skidmarsh Lane and also from the operators of Midgate East Stables. Both which were material consdieraiton in determination of the application.

2. Members were advised that amended plans had been received showing an

additional internal track leading to the proposed stables and a landscaping scheme had also been submitted advising density, tree planting and hedge planting on the periferary of the site. The landscaping details were acceptable and as such condition 7 would be removed from the report.

RReepprreesseennttaattiioonn wwaass rreecceeiivveedd oonn bbeehhaallff ooff tthhee aapppplliiccaannttss ffrroomm MMrrss NNuuttttggeennss wwhhiicchh iinncclluuddeedd::

Committee were advised the current provision of accomodation was insufficient for the number of horses on the site, both in their number and also in their size. Storage was currently provided in two containers generally full of hay with straw in the middle, resulting in no available storage for machinery. The wash stables were required all year round both when the horses were hot in the summer months and then when dirty in the winter months. The tack room would accommodate significant varieties of tack as each horse had a number of saddles and blankets for the varying seasons. The utility room was for the family to use with four generations of the family using the facility. around which would be taken away if the new facility were to be granted, Hay Barn produce own hay.

RReepprreesseennttaattiioonn wwaass rreecceeiivveedd ffrroomm tthhee WWaarrdd MMeemmbbeerr CCoouunncciilllloorr TToomm AAsshhttoonn wwhhiicchh iinncclluuddeedd::

Members were advised that Councillor Ashton had called the application into committee due to the complex history of the site and previous applicaitons there on it. He confirmed that at a recent Old Leake Parish Council meeting, whilst having not formerly commented on the application to the officers, it had supported the previous application and indicated it would support this one. The site was an existing equestrian facility with the application looking to improve the facility. It was reasonable to have proper good dry storage for hay and straw and also the horses. He confirmed the reasons for calling in the application being were principally to look at the impact on the local area and the impact on the open countryside and stated that the officer judgement was correct in that it was of no great scale and caused no harm. The removal of the caravan and the containers would be an improvement on the landscape with well designed and asthetically pleasing buldings. Finally the application importantly had the support of local people.

It was moved by Councillor Jonathan Noble and seconded by Councillor Brian Rush that the

application be granted in line with officers recommendation; subject to the conditions and

reasons therein, and subject to the removal of condition 7 and the addition of the

landscaping plan into condition 8.

VOTE: In Favour: 11. Against: 0. Abstentions: O CHECK*

Page 10


RESOLVED: That the application be granted in line with officer recommendation subject to the following conditions and reasons. 1 Notwithstanding the existing static caravan and the existing access road which forms

part of this application, the development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.


2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location plan (1/9) Proposed site plan rev C (4/9) Proposed stable plan –rev B (5/9) Proposed stable elevations –rev A (6/9) Proposed stable sections (7/9) Proposed hay barn floor plan and section –rev A (8/9) Proposed hay barn elevations


3 The stables and extensions to it hereby approved shall not be used for commercial

purposes.

Reason: In order to enable to control the impact of any commercial use may have upon the character of the countryside, the amenity of neighbouring residents or road safety. This condition accords with Local Plan Policies G1 and C01.

4 The stables and extensions to it hereby approved shall only be used for the

accommodation of horses and shall not be used for living accommodation.

Reason: The site is located within a remote area in the countryside where new residential development is strictly controlled. This condition accords with the objectives of Local Plan Policy C01 and the NPPF (2018).

5 The existing static caravan shall be removed from the site within 2 years from the

date of this permission or when the stable extension is completed or first brought into use whichever is the sooner.

Reason: In accordance with the applicants stated intentions and in the interests of the amenity and character of the area. This condition accords with the objectives of Local Plan Policy C01 and the NPPF (2018).

6 The existing shipping containers shall be removed from the site within 2 years from

the date of this permission or when the hay barn is completed or first brought into use whichever is the sooner.

Reason: In accordance with the applicants stated intentions and in the interests of the amenity and character of the area. This condition accords with the objectives of Local Plan Policy C01 and the NPPF (2018).

7 All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details (ref ‘Proposed site plan rev D (4A/9) and planting schedule received on the 12

th September 2018 within 6 months of the date of the

Page 11


first occupation of any building or completion of development whichever is the sooner. Any trees, plants, grassed areas which within a period of 5 years from the date of planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the first available planting season with others of similar size species or quality, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Section 197 of the 1990 Act which requires Local Planning Authorities to ensure, where appropriate, adequate provision is made for the preservation or planting of trees, and to ensure that the approved scheme is implemented satisfactorily. The condition accords with Adopted Local Plan Policy G1.

On conclusion of the above planning applications committee received the Appeal Report and the NPPF report ahead of adjournment. Minutes for these two items are noted below in their issued position within this agenda.

TTHHEE CCHHAAIIRRMMAANN AADDJJOOUURRNNEEDD TTHHEE MMEEEETTIINNGG AATT TTHHIISS PPOOIINNTT IINN TTHHEE PPRROOCCEEEEDDIINNGGSS AANNDD

RREECCOONNVVEENNEEDD TTHHEE MMEEEETTIINNGG AATT 22PPMM..

Councillor Tom Ashton rejoined the meeting at this point in the proceedings.

It is recorded that Councillor Brian Rush tabled apologies and took no part in the meeting following reconvention. 9 PLANNING APPLICATION B 17 0533

Outline application with all matters (layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping) reserved for the demolition of outbuildings and the construction of up to 6no. dwellings

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

Mrs Margaret Dickings The Development Manager presented the report to the committee noting updates to the report tabled: Referencing page 105 members were advised that at the time of the report being issued Old Leake Parish Council had not commented on the application. An objection had now been received from the Parish Council stating they felt it to be an overdevelopment of the site, a drain on local services and infrastructure. The site was not suitable for six dwellings and there was concern with the corner of the development and the impact on the road regarding visibility. Further concern noted that the village was already struggling and could not cope with further development. RReepprreesseennttaattiioonn wwaass rreecceeiivveedd ffrroomm tthhee WWaarrdd MMeemmbbeerr CCoouunncciilllloorr BBaarrrriiee PPiieerrppooiinntt wwhhiicchh

iinncclluuddeedd::

Councillor Pierpoint stated that it was not always easy to understand local issues by looking at pictures, especially when considering a planning application. He confirmed that as a previous member of the planning committee he too had experienced the same problem. Members were asked to recognise that the application was not as straightforward as maybe initially perceived. Having visited the site recently and spoken to all the residents and spent time in the area identifying all the issues the development would create to that part of the

Page 12


village, Councillor Pierpoint stated that vehicular access to the site would be seriously compromised: the safety of the local road from Pode Lane side was after the Southfield Lane junction, only wide enough for one single vehicle. On one side there was an open dyke which could be dangerous and when two cars met on that particular part of the road, one always had to reverse to a safe spot. The narrow road could not cope with anymore traffic. There was no public lighting in the evening along Pode Lane after the Southfield Lane junction, contrary to what was stated in the application. The proposed footpath would remove the width of the road even further: currently tractors and trailers with wide loads had to use the grass verge which would be lost if permission was granted resulting in further problems. Accessibility to the proposed site was a massive issue and traffic would be even more critical should visitors to the new dwellings decide to park on the proposed footpath making the road even more difficult to pass. The site would create major issues for local residents in terms of safety, congestion, parking issues, flooding, and increased noise and pollution. Pode Lane was situated in a flood risk area surrounded by dykes, some of which were already subsiding. The dyke at the back of the site would be suspect to further subsidence. The land was too small to adequately accommodate the number of properties creating additional pressure on an area already suffering with issues beyond its control. The development was out of character with the surrounding properties. Reference to the NPPF was also made in respect of promotion of sustainable development in rural areas in that housing needed to be located where it would enhance the vitality of the rural community: members asked to agree that the application would not. The development would not bring growth but bring further burden to an overgrown village, impacting on local schools, doctors, poor roads systems and increased traffic.

It was moved by Councillor Tom Ashton and seconded by Councillor Paul Skinner that the

application be refused contrary to officer recommendation as it contravened policies G1, G2

and H3(2) of the Boston Borough Local Plan 1999 and paragraphs 122 and 127 of the

National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

VOTE: In Favour: 10. Against: 1.

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

1. The proposed development would comprise, by virtue of the potential number of dwellings, an overdevelopment of the site, resulting in a cramped appearance incompatible with the spacious and 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.

Refused Drawing numbers: Site Location Plan, 17044-001-01 (1/7) Indicative Layout 17044-001-02 (2/7)

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. 10 PLANNING APPLICATION B 18 0153

Page 13


Change of use from agricultural land to residential curtilage

Dovecote Farm, Sutterton Drove, Amber Hill, Boston, PE20 3RF

Mr Johnson The Development Manager presented the report to the committee tabling no updates to the report issued. RReepprreesseennttaattiioonn wwaass rreecceeiivveedd ffrroomm MMrr GGiilleess CCrruusstt ssppeeaakkiinngg iinn oobbjjeeccttiioonn wwhhiicchh iinncclluuddeedd::

Confirming he was speaking as an independant consultant, Mrs Crust advised that he had had two barns turned down by the Council under Class Q because they required new floors which were structural. He confirmed he had been appointed to look at the bulding for an agricultural engineer to have one main bulding as a house and the rear udling has a workshop: a structrual survey had been done and one also done under Class Q which showed severe cracks in the walls which required underpinning for foundations and as such it precluded it from Class Q develoment. Members were advised that also excluded from Class Q development were extensions prior to the bulding being completed and that there had been a previous application at the site to extend the bulding which had been withdrawn on the advice of officers because an extension could not be built until the building had been built. Domestic curtilage was permitted the same size as the building and extension of the curtilage was not permitted until the house was built. Mr Crust referred members to a case called the ‘Hibbert Case’ which noted that such a dwelling had to be converted and not re-built. If the barn could not be re-built under building regulations because of the cracking and need for under pinning then that area of land in the countryside would be granted residential curtilage with no house to it. The subsequent application would be for a house on residential curtilege which was not what Class Q was for. The application was premature and members were asked to refuse it for being so and then policy Class Q followed to the letter. RReepprreesseennttaattiioonn wwaass rreecceeiivveedd ffrroomm tthhee aaggeenntt MMss MMcciinntteeee wwhhiicchh iinncclluuddeedd::

The barn conversion would be converted into two. The applicant would reside there with his wife; daughter, son-in-law, grandchild and mother so four generations would be housed on the site. The issue of the site being structurally sound or not was irrelevant. A structural report had been produced. The neighbours had a vendetta against the applicant with a number a barriers being presented all the way through the application and they had now sent their consultant to continue objecting this time. All the applicant wants to do is to live there and get on with their lives. They had had a nightmare with the application when all they were seeking was a little more domestic garden than allowed under the Class Q which only permitted the footprint of the building. Nobody else was affected, it was set to the back of the site and Ms McIntee questioned why the application had been taken through the committee as it was a common practice. There was no reason to refuse the application.

It was moved by Councillor Jonathan Noble and seconded by Councillor Stephen Raven that

the application be granted in line with officers recommendation, subject to the conditions

and reasons therein and the additional condition restricting implementation of the

permission subject to completion of B 16 0211 and B 18 0112.

VOTE: In Favour: 10. Against: 0 Abstention: 1

Page 14


RESOLVED: That the application be granted in line with officer recommendation subject to the following conditions and reasons

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission.


2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the application received 17

th July 2018 and in accordance with the associated plans

referenced: -

1/2 Site Location Plan (1:1250) drwg no. 401 2/2 Site Block Plan (1:200) drwg no. 402

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, in the interests of proper planning and to accord with the objectives of Local Plan Policy G1.

3. Notwithstanding the submitted site plan, no development to implement this change of use hereby approved shall take place until full details of landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall comprise a detailed specification of planting, hedging and Lincolnshire post and rail fencing. The specification shall include details of species of plants, plant size/age, density of planting, method of planting including details of ground preparation.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Section 197 of the 1990 Act which requires Local Planning Authorities to ensure, where appropriate, adequate provision is made for the preservation or planting of trees, and to ensure that the approved scheme is implemented satisfactorily and accords with the aims and objectives of saved adopted Local Plan Policy CO1 and G1.

4. All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details during the next available planting season following the implementation of the use or completion of development whichever is the sooner, unless agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the date of planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the first available planting season with others of similar size species or quality, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Section 197 of the 1990 Act which requires Local Planning Authorities to ensure, where appropriate, adequate provision is made for the preservation or planting of trees, and to ensure that the approved scheme is implemented satisfactorily. The condition accords with aims and objectives of saved adopted Local Plan Policy CO1 and G1.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no buildings whether permanent or temporary shall be constructed, or other structures shall be erected or hard surface provided on the application site.

Reason: To ensure that this land is only utilised for garden and private open space in association with the converted barn (‘Dovecote Farm’) in accordance with the aims and objectives of Policy CO1 of the Boston Borough Local Plan.

Page 15


6. The permission hereby approved shall only be implemented if the development approved under application B/16/0211 or B/18/0112 are completed.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity and character of the area and to ensure a residential curtilage is not created without an associated residential dwelling in accordance with Policy G1 and G2 of the Boston Borough Local Plan 1999.


Erection of cladding on an existing agricultural building to house agricultural vehicles and to store animal feed.

Dovecote Farm, Sutterton Drove, Amber Hill, Boston, PE20 3RF

Mr Johnson The Development Manager presented the report with no updates to the report issued.

RReepprreesseennttaattiioonn wwaass rreecceeiivveedd iinn oobbjjeeccttiioonn ttoo tthhiiss aapppplliiccaattiioonn ffrroomm MMrr CCrruusstt wwhhiicchh iinncclluuddeedd::

Mr Crust pointed out that he was representing himself and nobody else because of the other applications he had submitted which he felt had not been treated the same. Committee were advised that should they pass the application without adding a further condition as the barn was not put in through Class Q because it was not structurally sound and could not be converted under Class Q. The application was to re clad an agricultural barn and if the barn was maintained and re clad, it had been in agricultural use on the 20

th March 2013, there

would be an application on Class Q to turn it into another house. The Chairman interjected at this point and stated there was no definition of such an application at the current time. Mr Crust continued by saying that if the barn was made structurally sound without a condition being added that it be kept in agricultural use, it would revert back to a possibility of a Class Q conversion which would at that point be structurally sound. The Chairman stopped the timing clock and the Legal Officer made the following comment: ‘The application before committee was for cladding on an agricultural barn and that was all that was before the committee for determination’. Mr Crust continued by saying if you clad a barn to a structurally sound condition with a condition that it remain in agricultural and not be converted under Class Q he would have no issue with the application. He concluded stating he did not wish to see the Class Q policy misused. RReepprreesseennttaattiioonn wwaass rreecceeiivveedd ffrroomm tthhee aaggeenntt MMss MMccIInntteeee wwhhiicchh iinncclluuddeedd::

The family did not intend to convert the barn into a dwelling because it would be used as storage facility for their animal feed and other machinery as the site was a small holding. It appeared obvious that there appeared to be some personal vendetta against the applicant with so many objections be tabled throughout the process.

The meeting adjourned for a two minute recess at this point to allow the Legal Officer and

the Development Manager to liaise.

Page 16


The Development Manager advised committee that referring to para.55 of the NPPF it stated that planning conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed when necessary and relevant to planning and the development to be permitted. As the Legal Officer has stated the application was only for the cladding of the building: what may or may not happen to the building thereafter was not relevant to the permission and as such it would not accord with the NPPF to attach such a condition.

It was moved by Councillor Jonathan Noble and seconded by Councillor Paul Skinner that

the application be granted in line with officers recommendation, subject to the conditions

and reasons therein:

RESOLVED: That the application be granted in line with officer recommendation subject to the following conditions and reasons 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three



2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the

application received 11th May 2018 and in accordance with the associated plans

referenced: -

1/4 Site Location Plan (1:1250) drwg no. 301 2/4 Site Block Plan (1:200) drwg no. 302 4/4 Floor Plan and Elevation drwg no. 304

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, in the interests of proper planning and to accord with the objectives of Local Plan Policy G1.

12 APPEAL REPORT 67 SLEAFORD ROAD BOSTON

The Development Manager presented the report to the committee providing a brief overview of the outcome of the appeal. The Inspector felt there were three issues of consideration: the character and appearance of the area; the living conditions of existing and neighbouring properties and the car parking provision for no. 67. Sleaford Road. In respect of character; appearance and living conditions the Inspector had agreed the committee decision in terms of it being poor accommodation and that it should not be granted. However, in respect of parking provision the Inspector considered there would be no result of on street parking as the site was within walking distance of facilities and within an urban environment: as such the appeal was not upheld in that part but it was within the other two and as such the appeal was dismissed. It was agreed that future appeal reporting would include the reason(s) for refusal as well. 13 NPPF UPDATE REPORT

The Development Manager presented the report confirming she had condensed the report to a few pages for ease of reference for members. The tabling of the report was to seek any comment or questioning by members but she recognised that most issues had been addressed during the earlier training session.

Page 17


The Legal Advisor then addressed the meeting stating that he felt it may be helpful to officer advice in respect of the NPPF and affordable housing. One aspect starting to arise with developers was that of starter homes and members were advised that the statutory requirement in terms of the secondary legislation, which set out the rules and regulations of how it would work, had not to date been adopted. Whilst there was reference to it the detail was not known in full. The second element within the affordable housing aspect was the ‘build to rent’ sector within which it appeared they were trying to encourage the private sector in possibly doing something. It appeared that Central Government thinking was how it could satisfy the housing need. Whilst it was predicted that although it talked about 100% being rented, it could form part of a larger application and as such an application could be received for 200 homes - but within it there would be a ‘build to rent’ area. Further discussions were ongoing. RESOLVED: That committee received and noted the update report. 14 PRE-APPLICATION PROTOCOL

The Development Manager presented the report to the committee confirming that in July 2015, that Planning Committee had reviewed the practice of charging for Pre-application Advice following its introduction in July 2011. The Pre-application Advice Protocol included a scale of charges for the service which were last updated in November 2014 following approval by Cabinet. Referencing page 171 of the agenda, the Development Manager advised that the final column on line 7 read “...., or £xxx for each 0.1ha.” Members were advised it should read £100 for each 0.1ha. The report satisfied the ongoing commitment to monitor and review the Protocol and was accompanied by a number of appendices including a short summary showing the level of income and nature of Pre-application enquiries received. The monitoring and review had assessed the Protocol and made recommendations for it to be updated in light of budgetary constraints as well as suggesting amended pre-application fees. RESOLVED: That the Committee resolves to recommend to Cabinet that the Council:

Continues the current practice of charging for pre-application advice Increase fees for pre-application advice No longer providing informal responses to ‘Do I need planning permission...’ enquiries

and requiring the submission of Lawful Development Certificates Provide a fee schedule of charges for larger schemes (typically over 51+ dwellings) and

for those applications where the applicant specifically requests an enhanced service. Updates the Pre-application Protocol.

15 HERITAGE STRATEGY

The Head of Place and Space presented the report to the committee stating that Boston was blessed with a rich, diverse and unique heritage and, in particular, recognised at a national level for its significant medieval and Georgian historic environment. Over the last five years the recognition, appreciation and understanding had grown as the value of both the built and natural environment had been realised. Recent external investment in this irreplaceable

Page 18


asset has demonstrated the benefits which can be derived from this rich resource. As a result, there was now an increased need to put in place a strategy which set out clear aims and objectives to understand, restore, protect and share this heritage.

The Strategy recognised that Boston’s rich and unique heritage was an irreplaceable asset for current and future generations and needed to be sensitively and proactively managed to maximise benefit for the people, economy and environment of the town and surrounding borough. Its aim was to realise the full potential of Boston’s heritage by developing understanding and appreciation of its significance, utilising its strengths and safeguarding its future. It was moved by Councillor David Brown and seconded by Councillor Paul Skinner that the

committee agree and endorse the updated strategy.

RESOLVED: That the committee resolved to recommend to Cabinet that the Council agree and endorse the updated strategy. 16 CONSERVATION AREA PLAN 2018

The Head of Place and Space presented the report to the committee advising that Boston Town Centre was first designated as a Conservation Area in 1969, one of the earlier designations as the first Conservation Area designated in the country had been Stamford in 1967.

Boston Town Centre Conservation Area covered the medieval core of the town and fifteen defined Character Areas, all of which demonstrated historic character of special significance.

In particular, Boston’s importance as an internationally commercially successful trading town in the medieval period could be demonstrated by the survival not only of many of the original street layouts and several Listed Buildings dating from that period, but also of the two large market places which still held weekly markets. Its prominence as a wealthy Georgian and Victorian town was also evident from a large number of surviving buildings from this period.

It was moved by Councillor David Brown and seconded by Councillor Michael Cooper that

the committee agree and endorse the updated strategy.

RESOLVED: That the committee resolved to recommend to Cabinet that the Council agree and endorse the updated strategy. 17 DELEGATED DECISION LIST

Committee noted the delegated decision list.

The Meeting ended at 4.30 pm

Page 19


PLANNING APPLICATION B/18/0017

Front extension and alterations to roof at rear of garage building and Change of Use of former dairy room/creamery and other outbuildings along with associated land

and existing paddock area to special needs school (Class D1)

The Coach House, Hall Lane, Algarkirk, Boston, PE20 2HG

Applicant: Ms Darryll Loizou

Page 21

Agenda Item 1

Page 22

BOSTON BOROUGH COUNCIL

Planning Committee – 16 October 2018

Reference No: B/18/0017

Expiry Date: 18-Apr-2018 Extension of Time: 19-Oct-2018

Application Type: Full Planning Permission Proposal: Front extension and alterations to roof at rear of garage building

and Change of Use of former dairy room/creamery and other outbuildings along with associated land and existing paddock area to special needs school (Class D1)

Site: The Coach House, Hall Lane, Algarkirk, Boston, PE20 2HG

Applicant: Ms Darryll Loizou

Ward: Five Village

Parish: Algarkirk Parish Council, Sutterton Parish Council Case Officer: John Taylor

Link to application: B/18/0017 Third Party Reps: (1) 32 representations submitted

(2) Hard copy of online petition submitted with over 2500 names provided

(3) Agent letter written on behalf of 6 of the objectors

Recommendation: MINDED TO APPROVE

Page 23

http://www.boston.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6208&ApplicationNumber=B/18/0017

1.0 Reason for Report

1.1 The application has been called in to Planning Committee by Councillor Spencer

due to concerns over neighbour’s amenity, highway impacts and the wider public interest in the proposal.

2.0 Application Site and Proposal 2.1 The application site is located to the north of but close to the settlement boundary

of Algarkirk; a small village located to the east of Sutterton. The site is divided into two distinct parts; one covering an area of land and buildings immediately to the northeast of The Rectory where a number of buildings exist and a second larger area of paddock land that includes a pond. A wooden stable/storage building also exists close to the northern boundary of the paddock.

2.2 The smaller part of the application site includes a converted rural building used as

a dwellinghouse, a larger two storey building (believed to be a former coach house) and other smaller structures. On the eastern edge of the area are a number of mature protected trees covered by an area Tree Preservation Order (TPO) Algarkirk and Sutterton no.1. This area TPO also includes trees that run along parts of the northern boundary of the paddock land.

2.3 To the north of the smaller part of the application site are two dwellings known as

‘The Garden House’ and ‘Hall Toft’ with ‘The Old Rectory’ located immediately to the southwest. The eastern edge of the site fronts onto Hall Lane as does the entrance to the paddock area.

2.4 The northern edge of the paddock boundary predominately runs along the

boundary of ‘The Old Rectory’ with the western boundary adjoin a watercourse beyond which are the rear gardens of the dwellings of no’s 9-17 Stanley Drive and no’s 61-62 Park Avenue. Further dwellings are also located to the southwest of the paddock area.

2.5 Mature trees and hedging run along part of the southern boundary of the paddock

where the recreation ground and play area exist. This area is covered by Adopted Plan Policy R1. Further to the south but abutting the southernmost part of the application site lays St. Peter and St Paul’s Church; a Grade 1 listed building.

2.6 The eastern part of the paddock area also falls within an area identified as a

Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM). Information suggests that this was the site of a shrunken medieval village. The whole site is also positioned within an area of known archaeological interest.

2.7 This application seeks a front extension to the former Coach House and

alterations to the rear roof area and a change of use of the whole application site (buildings and land that extends to over 3 hectares) to a special needs school (Class D1).

Page 24

2.8 The following documents have been submitted as part of this application;

Design and Access Statement (Rev P04) Engaging Special Needs Learners through the Natural World (Appendix A) Arboricultural Report (Appendix B) Ecology Survey (updated 11/09/2018) Transport Statement (Appendix D) Flood Risk Assessment

3.0 Relevant History 3.1 B/15/0461 – Conversion and extension to existing garage/store/office building to

create dwellinghouse – Approved on 08/02/2016

4.0 Relevant Policy

Boston Borough Adopted Local Plan 1999

4.1 The development plan consists of the saved policies of the Boston Borough Local Plan (Adopted 1999). Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 The saved Local Plan Policies of relevance to this application are as follows:

G1 – Amenity G2 – Landscape and Wildife G3 – Surface and Foul Water G6 – Highway Access ED6 – Small Scale Industiral or Commercial Development CO1 – Coutryside Protection

Emerging South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 (SELLP)

4.3 With regards to emerging plans paragraph 48 of the NPPF states:

Local planning authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);

b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and

c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

Page 25

4.4 It is anticipated that the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan will likely be adopted before the end of this year. Therefore the policies contained within this document are attracting increasing weight.

4.5 Thus, relevant policies contained within the SELLP which must be given some

weight in the determination of this application are:

Policy 2 - Development Management Policy 4 - Approach to Flood Risk Policy 36 - Vehicle and Cycle Parking

4.6 Policy 2 Development Management:

Proposals requiring planning permission for development will be permitted provided that sustainable development considerations are met, specifically in relation to: 1. size, scale, layout, density and impact on the amenity, trees, character and

appearance of the area and the relationship to existing development and land uses;

2. quality of design and orientation; 3. maximising the use of sustainable materials and resources; 4. access and vehicle generation levels; 5. the capacity of existing community services and infrastructure; 6. impact upon neighbouring land uses by reason of noise, odour,

disturbance or visual intrusion; 7. sustainable drainage and flood risk; and 8. impact or enhancement for areas of natural habitats and historical

buildings and heritage assets. 4.7 Policy 36 Vehicle and Cycle Parking states:

All new development, including change of use, should provide vehicle and cycle parking, in accordance with the minimum Parking Standards adopted by the Local Planning Authorities (in Appendix 6), unless a high quality-design can demonstrate that a lower standard of provision delivers the requirements set out in 1-4 below. Parking for residents, employees and visitors should be integral to the design and form of all new development, and should ensure that: 1. parking spaces are fit for their intended use in terms of size and design; 2. for major residential development: a) a balanced provision of allocated and communal parking is provided, overlooked and accessible to the development it serves; b) off-curtilage parking is designed to maximise levels of security and safety for vehicles, drivers and pedestrians; and c) a secure, covered, convenient space to store at least two bicycles is provided within each residential plot; in the case of flatted developments this may be provided as a communal facility within the curtilage of the building containing the flats;

Page 26

3. for major non-residential development: a) secure, covered, convenient storage for bicycles for employees should be provided close to an entrance to the building. Changing and shower facilities should be provided where possible; b) secure, covered bicycle storage for visitors are located close to the main entrance to the building; c) where more than 50 parking spaces are provided, at least one double electric vehicle charge point will be required (2 spaces). For each additional 50 parking spaces, one double charging point should be provided up to a maximum of three (6 spaces); and

4. parking is well-integrated within the townscape or landscape, through an appropriate use of materials and landscaping;

Innovative solutions to vehicle-parking provision including shared spaces (where the location and patterns of use permit), and the incorporation of measures such as car clubs, will be supported.

An adequate supply of safe, secure and convenient public parking for vehicles will be delivered within and adjacent to the town centres, in partnership with the Local Highway Authority.

To demonstrate compliance with this policy, a Transport Assessment and associated Travel Plan should be submitted with proposals. The form will be dependent upon the scale and nature of the development and should be agreed through early discussion with the Local Highway Authority.

National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (NPPF)

4.8 The revised NPPF (2018) does not have a section specific to the type of proposal

being considered in this application; however, the following chapters do have some relevance:

Chapter 6 - Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Chapter 8 - Promoting Healthy and Safe Communities Chapter 9 - Promoting Sustainable Transport Chapter 16 - Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment

5.0 Representations 5.1 Consultation for this application was originally made early in the year and due to a

change in the description of the application a further 21 days consultation was given in May. A further period of consultation has now been carried out for a further 21 days that is due to expire on 24 October 2018. Given that this date is after Planning Committee any vote by Members would need to be made subject to no new objections being made or new materials planning consideration being raised above and beyond those that have already been considered as part of this application.

Page 27

5.2 As a result of publicity to date 32 representations have been received, 10 of which are objecting to the proposal. The objections were received from:

Algarkirk: Church Lane – no.10, ‘Wellington Lodge’, ‘South Cottage’, ‘Church View

Cottage’, ‘Harvest View’, Hawthorn Lodge’ Hall Lane – ‘Hall Toft’, ‘The Old Rectory’

Sutterton: Churchgate – no.27

Frampton: Middlegate Road: no.31 Letter of objection from Robert Doughty Consultancy representing 6 of the

addresses referred to above

5.3 The concerns raised within the objections received are summarised as follows;

Highways issues

Roads unsuitable for the special needs school No passing places on road network Visibility is poor at the entrance especially at harvest time Roads can get covered in mud making the lane precarious Massive increase in cars, busses, vans and lorries would occur A blind bend exists on Church Lane/Hall Lane Transport assessment does not account for vehicles using the site up to 9pm No lighting or pavements exist near the site Where will all the friends and relatives etc park...along the verge? Lack of parking spaces It is anticipated that parking will occur on our driveway Proposal stipulates 22 staff and 20-30 students so vehicle movement could

be in excess of 52, twice a day Children will need to walk on the road to gain access to the paddock and no

pavement exists between the two No pedestrian access to the site Access and egress concerns Copious amounts of school traffic at am and pm times Proposed parking and turning on the site looks inadequate Unsafe when transporting children from school to paddock and back again Transport statement does not assess minibuses shuttling between the site

and the paddock area TRICS data does not take into account the likely character of the use and the

inevitable dependence on the private car Parking for events and activities has not been considered Picking up students by minibus from a large catchment area would be

impractical

Impact on the character of the area and nearby historic assets

A high fence along the church wall would greatly alter the look of the church and church yard

Impact on the setting of the church Impact on the character and environment of the village Impact to the scheduled ancient monument site

Page 28

Impact on neighbour’s amenity and other nearby land users

Impact on the rural community Events will be noisy Loss of privacy as a group of houses overlook part of the paddock Noise in the paddock will impact on nearby residents eroding the tranquillity,

character and environment on evenings and weekends Pollution when transferring pupils from school to paddock via a minibus Impact on people’s fitness and pleasure from excessive vehicle movements Direct overlooking into the children’s bedroom and bathroom from new upper

floor windows Noise and disturbance from the children Noise from staff, students and visitors on all sides of the curtilage of the

rectory will be significant and 7 days a week.

Other material considerations

More suitable places exist No other commercial business on this side of the village The proposal would bring no benefits Information suggest school open till 9pm for parents and training sessions

and evening and weekend functions will occur No infrastructure for this school unlike a number of other specialised schools

that are in the pipeline for Lincolnshire The proposal will increase in the daytime the population by at least 10% Utilities cannot cope The expectation of living in a rural area is that the neighbouring land and

buildings will not be ‘zoned’ for commercial use No access to plans on website Impact on protected trees Impact on wildlife How is waste to be managed? Water supply inadequate Adequate lighting will need to be provided and this may impact on wildlife Why is overnight accommodation necessary? Impact on safety of residents and their children The comments in support appear to be more like character references No shop, post office or transport links make the site unsuitable Access from the school to the outdoor space is non-existent Impact on the safety of children using the existing play area Reports are out of date and do not cover the paddock area Tree survey does not cover the paddock area Proposed sites in the area are more sustainable No plans of the smaller building No assessment of 6ft fence around paddock Use of school will essentially operate from 7am to 9pm five days per week

with an unspecified number of events at the weekends Barn does not have planning permission and access track and water supply

has been installed across the paddock, without consent making it illegal No details of septic tank Ecology report does not reflect the scope of the project

Page 29

How many staff will be in the staff room at one time and how will noise be managed

Application lacks detail Drawings are misleading to how close the buildings are to the Old Rectory No elevation drawings of former creamery building.

5.4 Of the 32 representations received 22 of these were letters of support. Local

letters of support were received from the following addresses:

Sibsey Road ‘Skirbeck Grange’ Hall Lane ‘Garden House’ Fen Road ‘Hornsland’ Swineshead Road: no.155 Pilleys Lane: no.14 Workhouse Lane: ‘Mazel Tov’ Thomas Middlecote Drive: no.55 Church Meadows: no. 12

5.5 A summary of their reasons for supporting the application are as follows:

Education needs are severely stretched with many schools for special needs being closed or are closing. This school will be closer to children with special educational needs thus reducing vehicle journeys

Proposal is an excellent use for our neighbour’s buildings and land The premises were once used as a school facility in Algarkirk when children

from the local school were walked up to the Coach House that was used as a gymnasium

The proposal will be used for 4-11 year olds for around 20-30 children with mild to moderate learning disabilities by a highly regarded specialist team with 20 years experience

The teaching will use the natural environment to enhance the potential of the children

The school will operate from 8.30am to 3.30pm Monday to Friday during term times

Such a small group of children cannot produce serious disruption or danger to neighbours or the general public and we are surprised about the objections

Parking provision is to be properly managed and a car sharing scheme is to be implemented

Car sharing and staff/pupil collection will be carried out largely by a minibus Arrivals could be staggered if necessary to manage parking The colour visuals have been prepared by a person with tremendous

experience and the understanding of pupils with special needs. The drawings were prepared in order to bring the plans of the proposal to life

The wider community of Boston will benefit from hosting such a centre of excellence

Working in special education and having been involved in supporting planning I understand the concerns from some residents of the village but must say that this usually comes from fear and lack of understanding.

Page 30

5.6 The remaining 14 letters of support were from addresses outside the Boston area:

Anne Hayward Consortium, Angel Villa, Burlands Lane York Seers Bough, Wilton Lane, Bucks ‘Highland’ Northfield Lane, Wells-next-the-sea, Norfolk 21 Panmuir Road, London 108 Frinton Road, Holland on Sea, Essex 32 Old Station Way Shefford The Hollies, Millgate, Whaplode, Spalding 29B Edenham Road, Hanthorpe, Bourne 558A Garrat Lane, London South Cottage, West Pinchbeck, Spalding 39 Bickersteth Road, London

5.7 Some of the content within these letters of support also appear to be character

references for the existing school in London and for the applicant and future staff. It is my view that although these letters of support need to be considered they should attract slightly less weight than local letters of representation. A summary of their content is provided as follows:

I am a SEND education consultant working nationally and internationally in the field of children and your people with special education needs and disabilities and their families.

As a ‘SEND’ consultant I can state that the Chelsea Group are a highly regarded specialist organisation who work with children who have a diagnosis of Autism and communication/interaction needs and their work is exemplary.

The team are experienced, intuitive and achieve exceptional results with their children.

This school is much needed in the area given the increase in pupils with Autism and there is a real shortage in quality provision. This school will be set in the heart of the local countryside and will create a haven for children with special needs using the natural surroundings as the golden thread for their curriculum. I will quality assure the provision on a term by term basis.

The applicant will continue to take utmost care and consideration of potential disruptions to wildlife, trees and the surrounding community as these are the very core values and ethos they wish to build a beautifully planned, well thought out and most importantly desperately needed school in the area. The safety of children, staff and the community will be at the forefront of their plans.

I have witnessed the dedication of the Chelsea Group for many years and have nothing but admiration for the dedication of the applicant. We assist with children’s special needs and their disability and believe the proposal should be commended.

According to the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) this type of proposal is much needed in the area as Lincolnshire is poorly served creating a large shortfall in places leading to high levels of stress for affected families. Many families and their children are being failed which is a shocking injustice.

The proposal by the Chelsea Group is highly considered relying heavily on specialised advice in terms of the environment, security, safety and with a careful eye on the preservation of this rural community.

Page 31

Concerns of noise from children have been raised but this proposal will provide space for children with mild to moderate learning disabilities as opposed to severe autism. The surrounding for this proposal will assist in giving the children a calming environment.

Also, this is not the first time these buildings have been used as part of an educational establishment.

It took two years to find the correct placement for our child which was 106 miles away from my home. This facility will be perfect for local families that need this type of schooling for their children.

After 3 years in my child’s current school he is very happy and thriving in their environment. This is testament to the facilities, therapies, specialist knowledge, training and ethos of the staff. There has never been a requirement to restrain my child and his ability to self-regulate and integrate with society has developed beyond our wildest dreams.

This proposal is another example of such a placement. The location is ideal with regards to providing a calm, happy and therapeutic environment. This is intrinsic to such a specialist approach to education and personal development of children with complex needs. The demand for places is far exceeding the places available and we urgently need more.

We thus plead with anyone considering objecting to such a placement, resist jumping to conclusions and seek further understanding.

With considerable experience and qualified at various levels which has shown me that it is always in the child’s best interest to be kept at home with their family as the trauma of being sent away to a residential school is incredibly damaging on their emotional wellbeing. The day school planned at the Willow School with give the children the high level of specialised support without having to be separated from their families to board long distances from home.

The demographic evidence shows the need for a special needs school in the area and they have an experienced special needs owner waiting to take on the task of providing the local care needed.

The Chelsea Group are a renowned special needs school in London with a good reputation and any school established under this name will be a success. Hey are also experienced at working in partnership with residents and organisations, which should be of comfort to residents living nearby.

Having 20 years experience in the teaching profession I can state that a nature-focused education programme will have the most benefit on a child’s mental, emotional, social behaviour.

The special needs provision in Lincolnshire and specifically in South Lincolnshire is woefully inadequate. Limiting the number of places within the school is critical to ensuring each child’s needs would be met and having a maximum of 30 pupils will achieve this.

Integrity, care and admiration is given to the applicant. Care has been taken to ensure the impact to local wildlife is minimal. We understand that this project will not extend the site of archaeological

interest. The organisers have stated that they are taking every step to protect the

existing plants and wildlife. Issues around building, drainage, electricity, septic tanks, surface water etc

need to be addressed at planning stage but the fact they are there does not prevent the project from being undertaken as long as they are satisfactorily resolved.

Page 32

Every child deserves opportunities and what a great opportunity to learn through nature and through sensory play.

To object on the basis of disability is discriminatory and there is no evidence that the pupils will cause any local inconvenience.

It is a proven model that children with extra needs thrive in nature making this location ideal with interaction with nature and wildlife.

The school will provide local employment for the right staff. We urgently need more projects of this nature. This school will not only provide the students with the best possible start in life

but also provide a lifeline to their families future health, function and unity. The applicant has helped our family (we have a profoundly autistic son) and

basically ‘saved our lives’ and this scheme would be a wonderful addition to the area.

Family life is hard for families who have to travel a long way for special needs schools.

6.0 Consultations

6.1 Algarkirk Parish Council – Object on the following grounds:

Should the application be approved and the school closes in the future, can the Class D1 revert to residential and not remain commercial

Concerns still with regard to the transport issue and the narrow lanes to the site from all directions being extremely narrow and without a footpath or passing places.

6.5 Sutterton Parish Council – No objections.

6.3 Lincolnshire County Council (Highways) – No objections.

6.4 Lincolnshire County Council (Education) – No comments to make.

6.5 Historic England – Do not wish to make any comments.

6.6 Environment Agency – No objections but request a condition relating to a foul water drainage strategy.

6.7 Welland and Deeping IDB – No objections but advice given on potential consents that may be required from the Board.

6.8 Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust – Awaiting comments.

6.9 Consultant Architect – The building is currently underused and the proposed changes will allow it to play a useful role in providing special facilities for a special school establishment. The changes indicated are sensitive to the character of the building.

7.0 Planning Issues and Discussions 7.1 The key considerations in respect of this proposal are as follows:

Principle of the change of use for the land and buildings Design and scale of the alterations to existing buildings Potential impact on the Grade I Church and the Scheduled Ancient Monument

as a result of the proposed paddock use

Page 33

Impact to protected trees Impact to neighbours amenity Highway issues Ecological issues Equalities issues Flood risk issues

Principle of the Change of Use of the land and Buildings

7.2 The existing buildings that are to be converted will see some relatively minor

additions/alterations externally to accommodate the new use. These buildings are grouped together in a parcel of land that is situated between the dwellings known as The Old Rectory and Garden House with the plot having a long frontage (some 85m) with Hall Lane. These buildings are all set back over 50m from the highway with the land in between accommodating a garden area, which contains a group Tree Preservation Order (Algarkirk and Sutterton no.1).

7.3 The second parcel of land that is also included in the application is the change of use of the paddock land to allow the children the option of using the land to develop their social learning.

7.4 According to the applicant’s submitted information they state;

‘The Chelsea Group of Children runs a highly successful school for 47 primary aged children with ASC, MLD/SLCN and SPLD rated by Ofsted in 2016 as ‘good’. The school is oversubscribed and highly rated by the 11 Local Authorities (LAs), which it serves. The school has a strong therapeutic approach to all its work and employs a wide range of speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and a range of additional therapeutic approaches. This approach is embedded within the curriculum and is delivered by teachers and therapists together. Pupil outcomes are at least good with a strong emphasis on returning to mainstream schools wherever appropriate. The curriculum is innovative and the school prides itself on its range of specialist interventions via effective provision mapping and effective management of behaviour. The school is a strong community with parents, pupils and the local/regional communities. It has strong links with the University of Roehampton with an accredited teacher training programme being delivered in the school for university students.

The Director of the School and the Headteacher wish to establish an innovative primary provision in Lincolnshire for pupils with ASC/MLD/SPCN for local Lincolnshire children. The underlying theme for this provision will be to promote learning and teaching through nature, animals, gardening and using the local natural environment. The Chelsea Group of Children will follow a therapeutic based approach but the focus will be on ‘outside’ learning experiences and opportunities. They will build on their successful and proven model in London and base this new provision at Algarkirk, near Boston, Lincolnshire for local children and their families. The Chelsea Group of Children have chosen this geographical area not just because it is a beautiful setting but it is also the home of one of the parents of a child who was educated at the London school and who is passionate to see the land and buildings serving the needs of local children with complex needs. In addition, Boston has the highest % of children and young people with identified SEN in proportion to the numbers of school children in the district.

Page 34

It is the ideal location for this rural special school. The map enclosed with this overview clearly demonstrates the location of the pupils with the various needs and the location of our proposed site. Our school is in the heart of the high SEN pupil population particularly between Boston and Spalding thus reducing pupil transport costs for the LA.’

7.5 The applicant’s submitted information goes on to state:

‘We feel this is the best and most natural use of the land, The Willow School will offer nature based education and, as such, completely embraces the preservation of the rural beauty and serenity. We feel our students deserve to experience and enjoy the natural environment, and in our research in our London school, a natural setting offers the best opportunities for engagement and joy for the mild to moderate special needs student. The beauty and wonder of nature is the basis of our entire curricula for the school.’

‘Our maximum enrolment will be 30 children, which is a small school, and our lessons will be taught in groups of not more than five students. Studying in a natural environment is much less noisy than on a tarmacked playground. Where appropriate, additional shrubs and trees will be planted to limit any acoustic impact on the surrounding area.’

7.6 The submitted information states that the school will be open on weekdays from

9.00am until 3.30pm for children although staff are likely to be arriving around 7am and leaving the site by 7pm. On occasion the school will need to stay open until 9pm in the evening for parents or training sessions, or events.

7.7 The school’s maximum enrolment of 30 pupils (aged 4 to 11 years) will be

achieved over a three-year period. 7.8 Policy ED6 of the Adopted Plan considers economic proposals that are within or

adjacent to settlements where they are considered to be small scale. Whilst this proposal is not for an industrial use it does have relevance to this scheme as this proposal may be considered to be commercial.

7.9 Although there is very little in the way of Adopted Plan Policy that specifically

deals with a proposal of this nature and limited guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 it recognised that it is now more commonplace to see proposals for changes of use in rural areas; indeed there are now permitted development rights that allow such changes to state-funded schools and registered nursery’s subject to satisfying the detailed criteria for such a proposal.

7.10 Notwithstanding the above this proposal is for a commercial venture to a special

needs school and it has to be assessed on its own merits. 7.11 This proposal appears to introduce a use that will predominantly take place on

weekdays with little activity taking place in the evenings and weekends. Given the type of school proposed and the limited number of students that are to attend the school on weekdays I do not consider that the proposed use would be at conflict with neighbouring uses.

Page 35

7.12 However, there are other uses that fall within the same Use Class (D1) that may generate far more traffic and frequent evening and weekend use. For this reason if this application was to be approved a condition should be attached that removes any permitted development rights that could allow other uses within this Use Class such as clinics, health centres etc. Furthermore I consider that the school should be limited in size (maximum of 30 pupils) to ensure the Local Planning Authority can fully assess any increase in pupil numbers in the future and any potential impacts that may arise as a result of this.

7.13 To conclude I consider the principle of the proposal to be, subject to the two conditions suggested above, a facility that would benefit the surrounding area and some of the wider community and their children subject to all other matters being acceptable.

Design and scale of the alterations to existing buildings

7.14 The physical changes to the buildings within the site relate to the large garage

building. This structure is an existing two-storey building and this application seeks to provide a front extension with a footprint of 9.5m wide and 4.2m in depth. The height of this extension will measure 3.2m to the top of the parapet behind which will be a concealed flat roof.

7.15 This part of the proposal appears well thought out and the resulting design will not visually harm the appearance of this grouping of attractive buildings or adversely impact on the character and appearance of the area.

7.16 To the rear of the building exists a two storey element with a mono-pitched roof that extends beyond the main body of the building. This proposal seeks to raise the middle part of this roof to provide a long dormer with a flat roof with three windows. These windows allow light to the newly created WC/shower, stairwell and corridor area at first floor level. Another minor addition is the spiral fire escape that is to be positioned in the western corner of the building at the rear. There is an existing tall window that will be replaced by a doorway to allow access to this fire escape.

7.17 Based on the above it is considered that the physical alterations to the buildings would not harm nearby heritage assets or the general character and appearance of the countryside.

Potential impact on the Grade I Church and the Scheduled Ancient Monument as a result of the proposed paddock use

7.18 Whilst the physical alterations have been discussed above the paddock area use, which is a larger separate parcel of land situated on the other side of the neighbouring property known as ‘The Rectory’, is also a material consideration.

7.19 The paddock measures some 2.52 hectares with what appears to be a historic access positioned close to the north-eastern edge of the paddock off Hall Lane. Mature trees border most of the perimeter of this area although only the trees located along the northern boundary are included in the Algarkirk and Sutterton no.1 Tree Preservation Order (TPO). A small stable-type building also exists close to the northern edge of the site and a pond is located in the southern half of this area. The only other features of note are some post and rail fencing that is used to house goats.

Page 36

7.20 Just over half of this paddock site is classified as a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) where the description states that it is a ‘Shrunken Medieval Village’. The area of protection covers the eastern half of this paddock area and the SAM also includes the whole of the recreation ground play area.

7.21 It should be noted that any new fencing proposed along the perimeter of the paddock or within the school area would need to be conditioned accordingly so that a soft appearance can be achieved that would ensure that no substantial harm arises to the setting of the Grade I Church or the SAM. Some elements of the fencing details currently submitted are unsatisfactory and, if this application was to be approved, final details of any fencing must be required by condition and any details approved must be to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. It should also be noted that the granting of this application does not remove the need for the applicants to apply for SAM Consent if required to do so.

7.22 A number of objectors have raised concern about the impact that this proposal will have will harm the setting of the listed building and cause damage to the SAM.

7.23 Within the paddock area itself this application does not propose any development. After reiterating this to a number of objectors I requested that the applicants submit a clear statement that clarifies what works are proposed within the paddock area. This was submitted as follows;

‘Paddock clarification;

The Client has confirmed that the paddock area will not change in any way if the application is approved. The planning application is limited to the proposed change of use only and no development (including paths, roads, bridges, etc) are being proposed at this time’.

7.24 Notwithstanding this statement there was still a concern that a car park was going

to be created in the paddock area. Although a hatched area is highlighted on the submitted plans, this relates to a turning area for the minibus to enter into the site and leave safely from the site in a forward gear, rather than being the size of a conventional car park. Any gates, fencing and surface material associated with the turning/parking area would need to be conditioned accordingly as the Local Planning Authority needs to be certain that any minor works proposed would not harm the SAM. There are known alternatives for conventional hard surfacing that could be used for a minibus that are considered less intrusive than the surface material used for the park apparatus found on the recreation ground to the south (also falling within the site).

7.25 Although the applicants have confirmed that no development is proposed within

the paddock area there are certain works that could be carried out that may be considered permitted development if planning permission is approved. It is therefore important to remove permitted development rights from the paddock area to ensure that no development takes place that may harm the setting of the church or the SAM. An appropriately worded condition should be attached to any forthcoming approval.

7.26 Subject to this condition the case officer considers that no harm would arise to the

setting of the Grade I church and the SAM would be unaffected.

Page 37

Protected Trees

7.27 The applicants have submitted a full arboricultural report as part of their submission. This examines the full extent of the trees on site and provides appropriate protection for the trees for any works that are to be carried out.

7.28 This application proposes to remove two trees that are contained within the

Algarkirk and Sutterton no.1 TPO for the purposes of creating the car park area for the school. These relate to 1 no. Wild Cherry tree and 1 no. Yew tree. The remaining trees covered by the TPO will be unaffected by this proposal. The whole of the parking area, driveway and paths would be developed using ‘no dig’ construction techniques.

7.29 Normally trees that are removed that are the subject of a TPO would require

replacements to be planted and the report identifies the location of the two replacement trees.

7.30 In terms of the level of work that is to be carried out, which as stated uses ‘no dig’

construction techniques with detailed tree protection measures and mitigation in the report it is concluded that the granting of this proposal would not harm the collective amenity value that this group of trees hold.

Impact on neighbour’s amenity

7.31 Given the amount of information that has been submitted for this application and

the number of revisions that have had to be made to some of the plans and documents I requested that the applicant submit a clear statement that clarifies their intended opening hours for the school.

‘Confirmation of opening times;

As noted in section 1.5 of the Design and Access Statement, the opening times have been confirmed as follows. The school will be open on week days from 9.00am until 3.30pm for children although staff are likely to be arriving around 7am and leaving the site by 7pm. On occasion the school will need to stay open until 9pm in the evening for parents or training sessions/events. Any school fete’s, school plays and activities will be held during weekdays, during term times and during normal school hours.’

7.32 The Client has also confirmed that the school will not be open at the weekends.

7.33 A number of the objections received state that the granting of this proposal will cause significant harm to nearby neighbour’s amenity 7 days a week and they cite noise, disturbance, overlooking, pollution and impact to fitness as some of the criteria of why this proposal should be refused.

7.34 To clarify this proposal seeks the change of use of land and buildings to a special needs school for a maximum of 30 pupils. The submitted Design and Access Statement outlines that the school pupils would be aged between 4-11 years old and the school aims to teach pupils with mild to moderate learning difficulties and these pupils would attend between the hours of 0900 and 1530 Mondays to Fridays only. Staff may arrive as early as 0700 hours and leave as late as 1900 hours and therefore evenings and weekends will be unaffected by the proposed use.

Page 38

7.35 It is my opinion that when the school is open for school children, any noise and

disturbance associated as a result of their activity is likely to be moderate at most. Any impact to neighbours amenity would be limited to moderate harm in the daytime from Monday to Fridays, and during school opening hours, when the children have left for the day and only some staff remain any harm would be considered to be minimal.

7.36 There is no proposed use of the school during late evenings or weekends and therefore the majority of time there will be no impact to neighbour’s amenity whatsoever.

7.37 There has been an objection raising concerns of overlooking as a result of

introducing 3 new windows in the western elevation at first floor level. However, these windows relate to a WC/Shower, a corridor and the stairwell and therefore these new windows are not to habitable rooms but are functional additions to allow light into these internal areas.

7.38 I do acknowledge that there will be an increase in vehicles that could be

noticeable and this may cause some minor impact to neighbour’s amenity around school opening and closing times for the school. However, the vehicle movements, potential noise and disturbance, pollution from the increase in vehicles etc could hardly be described as causing a high level of harm.

7.39 I have taken into account all of the concerns relating to the impact on neighbour’s amenity received in the letters of objection and consider that their concerns would not outweigh the merits of this proposal as it is the officer’s view that no substantial harm would arise to their amenity to a level that would warrant refusal of this application.

Highway issues

7.40 The applicants have submitted a Transport Statement as part of their submission

and this uses the recognised TRICS database to predict the number of vehicle movements for the use as a special needs school (D1). Although the applicants indicate that the maximum number of pupils (30) will take three years to achieve the data provided has used the worst case scenario using the maximum number of children in their calculations.

7.41 According to the report between 0830 hours and 0900 hours (peak time drop off

period) the forecast shows 25 car movements and between 1530 hours and 1600 hours (peak time pick up period) the forecast shows 30 car movements.

7.42 The above figures are stated as being a worst case scenario given the specialist

nature of the school. 7.43 In order to create a sustainable travel profile and reduced private vehicle trips the

school will introduce green travel measures including the implementation of minibus services for the picking up and dropping off pupils and staff, the implementation of a staff car sharing system and the active employment of local staff, whereby alternate modes of transport will be promoted. This would further reduce the dependency on the private car.

Page 39

7.44 The parking provision within the site identifies 2 minibus parking spaces and 14 car parking spaces in total that will serve the staff and visitors. 12 cycle spaces are also to be provided.

7.45 As it is the intention of the applicant to utilise the paddock area for sensory learning and development for their students individual pupils/small groups of pupils would be ‘taxied’ to the paddock area by minibus. This removes the reliance on walking pupils along the highway verges when trying to access the paddock area.

7.46 Lincolnshire County Council acting as the highways authority has assessed this proposal in terms of the intended use as a special needs school taking account of vehicle movements, highway safety and the level of parking proposed within the site and raise no concerns regarding the proposal. Furthermore, no highways conditions are required to make the development acceptable. Their assessment is based on the number of pupils being limited to a maximum of 30.

Ecological Issues

7.47 The applicant submitted an Ecological Report that was carried out in 2015 as part of their submission. However, this report has now been updated (September 2018).

7.48 The report provides advice in respect of protected species which may be affected by the proposed works providing mitigation where necessary.

7.49 Within the recommendations of this report it concludes that no large scale mitigation is required in respect of bats. It states that the building is considered to have negligible potential to support roosting bats and that there is no requirement for a Natural England European Protected Species Licence, and it is not considered necessary to work to a method statement for bats.

7.50 The report acknowledges that since the site has potential to be used for nesting by several species of common bird, any site work should commence outside the active nesting season which typically runs from March to late August.

7.51 The survey does not raise any concerns although it is recommended that a condition be attached to any forthcoming approval that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the recommendations detailed within the Ecological Report.

Equalities issues

7.52 As stated earlier this proposal is for the change of use of the existing buildings and land to a special needs school for children so there are sensitive issues relating to equalities and diversity that need to be considered.

7.53 In the determination of this application, consideration and due regard has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 which seeks to: -

Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimization and other conduct prohibited by the Act;

Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and

Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

Page 40

7.54 The Equality Act 2010 is a single legal framework that seeks to provide a clear

basis upon which to tackle disadvantage and discrimination. Most of the provisions of the Act came into force in October 2010, replacing and consolidating nine pieces of legislation. The Act seeks to ensure people are not discriminated against because they share certain ‘protected characteristics’, are assumed to share those characteristics or associate with other people that share a protected characteristic. It also aims to increase equality of opportunity and foster good relations between groups.

7.55 The Act covers both direct and indirect discrimination. The Act also extended

protection to those experiencing associative discrimination. This occurs when a victim of discrimination does not have a protected characteristic but is discriminated against because of their association with someone who does e.g. the parent of a disabled child. It also extended the concept of discrimination by perception, where a victim of discrimination is presumed to have a protected characteristic, whether they do have it or not.

7.56 Having ‘due regard’ means giving an appropriate level of consideration to

equalities issues. The Equality Act 2010 explains that having due regard for advancing equality involves: Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their

protected characteristics. Taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these

are different from the needs of other people. Encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in

other activities where their participation is disproportionately low. 7.57 The Act also states that meeting different needs involves taking steps to take

account of disabled people’s disabilities. It also describes fostering good relations as tackling prejudice and promoting understanding between people from different groups. Further, it states that compliance with the duty may involve treating some people more favourably than others.

7.58 It is clear from the Act that there is a duty in planning decision making that planning applications should not be refused based on the protected or unprotected characteristics of either individuals or groups. Members should thus maintain a clear mind when considering this proposal looking at the benefits that such a specialised school will offer balanced against the other planning issues.

7.59 During the life of this application the case officer received an enormous amount of information both in email form and letter form as well as numerous telephone calls that have communicated in a way that has given no regard to The Equalities Act (2010) or other equality/diversity issues in general and this lead to the Officer issuing a position statement on the website advising that neighbour representations and other third party representations could not be made available on the website due to some of the representations having discriminatory information contained with them.

7.60 Any comments that were made that may be considered discriminatory have not been given any weight in the determination of this application.

Page 41

Flood Risk 7.61 The application site falls within zone 3 of the Environment Agency’s flood zone

maps and according to the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment parts of the site are identified as within a ‘danger for some’ category.

7.62 The Environment Agency did not object to this proposal but do provide advice to

the applicant on foul water issues and the potential for the requirement for a permit for the septic tank that has already been installed within the grounds. The granting of any planning permission of course does not automatically guarantee that a permit would be granted from the EA.

7.63 It is therefore agreed that a foul water strategy condition be included if the

application was to be approved and the applicant is urged to contact the Environment Agency for guidance at their earliest convenience.

8.0 Summary and Conclusion 8.1 This proposal seeks minor changes to existing buildings to facilitate the change of

use of the buildings and associated land to a special needs school.

The school would provide dedicated learning opportunities for mild to moderate children

The opening hours will be 0900 hours to 1530 hours Monday to Friday The school will be closed in the evenings (unless there is a parents evening) The school will be closed at the weekends No severe increase in traffic movements are likely to occur The school has 14 on-site car parking spaces and 2 minibus spaces No unjustified works will be carried out to the protected trees The ecology of the site will be protected No development is proposed in the paddock area

8.2 The recommendation has taken into account the extensive information received in

the letters of objection received. However, it is considered that the material planning consideration raised in these objections does not outweigh the merits of this proposal.

9.0 Recommendation It is recommended that Committee are Minded to Approve the application subject to the following list of conditions, and subject to no new issues being raised within any new information received prior to the expiry of the consultation period (24 October 2018).

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 51 of the Planning and Complsory Purchase Act 2004.

Page 42

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plans:-

Ref: P1000 Rev P.01 ‘Location Plan’ (1/19) Ref: P1011 Rev P.01 ‘Proposed Ground Floor Plan’ (6/19) Ref: P1012 Rev P.03 ‘Proposed First Floor Plan’ (7B/19) Ref: 1136 P1013 Rev P.01 ‘Proposed Roof Plan’ (8/19) Ref: 1136 P2009 Rev P.01 ‘Proposed Long Elevations – Garage Building’

(11/19) Ref: 1136 P2010 Rev P.01 ‘Proposed Short Elevations – Garage Building’

(12/19) Ref: P2011 Rev P.01 ‘Proposed Sections Garage Building’ (13/19) Ref: wwa_1755_AL_702 Rev P01 ‘Tree Protection and Removal Plan’

(15A/19) Ref: wwa_1755_LL_101 Rev P01 ‘Car Park Layout Plan’ (16/19) Ref: wwa_1755_LL_102 Rev P00 ‘Rectory Boundary Plan’ (17/19) Ref: P1010 Rev P.02 ‘Proposed Site Plan’ (19/19)

And the accompanying Design and Access Statement ref: 120618 Rev P04.


3. No development shall take place above slab level until details of the materials

proposed to be used in the construction of the external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the new building is in keeping with the character of the area and to accord with Adopted Local Plan Policy G1.

4. The maximum number of pupils attending the school shall be limited to 30.

Reason: The Local Planning Authority wish to be in a position to fully assess any potential impacts that may arise in respect of any significant increase in vehicle movements and any significant harm to the amenity of nearby neighbours as a result of larger student numbers being allowed to use such a facility and to accord with Adopted Plan Policies G1 and G6.

5. No development shall commence above ground level until a Foul Water Strategy

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The use hereby approved shall not be commenced until the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved Foul Water Strategy.

Reason: To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding and to accord with the objectives of Local Plan policy G3.

Page 43

6. Prior to the commencement of any works relating to roadway or pathway works

within the site final details of the surface materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall proceed fully in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate materials are used in sensitive areas where ‘no-dig’ construction methods are used in accordance with Adopted Plan Policies G1, G3, G6 and the National Planning Policy Framework (2018).

7. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the

recommendations contained within the submitted Ecological Report prepared by Scarborough Nixon Associates Limited, dated 11

th September 2018.

Reason: To ensure that protected species and their habitats and other breeding birds are protected in Accordance with Adopted Plan Policy G2.

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order) no fences, gates, hard surfacing, buildings or other permanent structures (other than those approved by this consent) shall be erected on the larger parcel of land within the application site known as ‘the paddock’.

Reason: To ensure the rural character and appearance of this attractive area is retained and to ensure that the setting of the Grade I Listed Church and the Scheduled Ancient Monument are appropriately protected in accordance with Adopted Plan G1 and the National Planning Policy Framework (2018).

9. The use hereby approved by this consent (Class D1 of the Town and Country

Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Order 2015) shall be restricted to the use of the land and buildings as a ‘special needs school’ only and no changes within this Use Class or other Use Classes shall be allowed.

Reason: The care and needs of the children attending the school are such that 1:1 care is likely for the majority leading to a different anticipated intensity of use compared to a traditional main stream school. The condition will also ensure other uses falling within the same Class D1 use, such as health centres, clinics, day centres, museums, libraries and other non-residential institutions, cannot commence without formal consent being obtained from the Local Planning Authority and it will allow the Local Planning Authority to fully assess any potential impacts that may arise from such a use. This condition accords with Adopted Plan G1 and 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. Lisa Hughes

Growth Manager

Page 44


Application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval B/14/0165 for the

construction of a drive-thru coffee shop (mixed use comprising class A1 and class A3)

plus internal roadway, parking area and associated development to make changes to

the operational hours

Plot B, The Quadrant, Land off A16, Wyberton, Boston, PE21 7TD

Applicant: Mr Burney, Burney Estate Ltd

Page 45

Agenda Item 2

Page 46


Planning Committee - 16 October 2018

Reference No: B/18/0321 Expiry Date: 24-Sep-2018 Extension of Time: 17-Oct-2018

Application Type: Approval of Reserved Matters Proposal: Application for approval of reserved matters following outline

approval B/14/0165 for the construction of a drive-thru coffee shop (mixed use comprising class A1 and class A3) plus internal roadway, parking area and associated development to make changes to the operational hours

Site: Plot B, The Quadrant, Land off A16, Wyberton, Boston, PE21 7TD Applicant: Mr Burney, Burney Estate Ltd Agent: Mr Andrew Cooke, Dovetail Architects Ltd Ward: Wyberton Parish: Wyberton Parish Council Case Officer: Trevor Thompson Third Party Reps: None Link to application: B/18/0321

Recommendation: GRANT

Page 47



1.1 This application has been presented to the Planning Committee because it

involves alterations to a scheme which was approved by the Committee at the meeting held in April this year.

2.0 Background 2.1 This application is the first one of three applications which relate to development

at The Quadrant which forms part of this agenda. 2.2 As Members may recall, in April of this year an application for approval of

reserved matters for the construction of a drive thru coffee shop (mixed use comprising class A1 and A3) plus new internal roadway and parking area and associated development at plot B, The Quadrant, off the A16 Wyberton was granted subject to 4 conditions. Condition 4 attached to this approval limited the times when the premises may be open to the public and was specifically imposed by the Planning Committee (ref B/17/0506).

2.3 This current application has been submitted to effectively change the time periods

set by this condition. Normally an application under section 73 would be submitted to change or vary a condition attached to a planning permission. However, a section 73 application cannot be made for a condition attached to a reserved matters approval. This is the reason why the applicant has submitted a fresh application for the approval of all reserved matters for the same development as was approved earlier this year. The only difference between the two applications is the intended business hours and a change in the location of the pedestrian crossing within the site which joins the footpath to the north of the site.

2.4 The application is accompanied by a justification statement which explains the

reasons why the applicant seeks alterations to the approved business hours. This means that the proposal needs to be fully assessed again taking into account the revised business hours including any other changes to planning circumstances which have occurred since the previous decision was made, notably the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and the relevant policies contained with the Main Modifications of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036. Such matters are discussed below.

3.0 Application Site and Proposal 3.1 The application site occupies about 0.26 hectares and is known as Plot B, located

to the east of the new A16 roundabout at Wyberton. Plot B is located to the north of the road that runs, in part, from the A16 roundabout to the proposed football stadium which has not yet been built. This stretch of road is partly built and currently extends about 90m from the roundabout. Plot A lies on the southern side of this link road which is subject to a separate planning application for the erection of a retail unit (class A3 and A5) and a drive thru restaurant (mixed use comprising class A1 and A3). The report relating to this application is also on this agenda (ref B/18/0348).

Page 48

3.2 This current application is for the approval of reserved matters for the construction of a drive thru coffee shop (mixed use comprising class A1 and class A3) plus internal roadway, parking area and associated development. It is proposed that vehicluar access to the site will be off the partly constructed link road that will lead to the stadium and will be about 65m east from the A16 roundabout. It is not intended to construct a new vehicular access onto the A16.

3.3 The proposed single storey building will be about 16m wide by 13m deep. The gross internal area will be about 170sqm. The external face of the building will consist of horizontally laid timber cladding and white render plus glazing. The proposed roof will essentially be flat with a slight incline to allow run off and will be capped with grey sheets. The intended user of the building will be ‘Costa Coffee’. Development has recently commenced on site. Condition 4 attached to the previous approval on this site which relates to business hours states : The premises shall not be open to the public except between 6am to 10pm Monday to Sunday Reason: To accord with the applicants stated intentions, in the interests of the amenity of the area and to accord with the objectives of Local Plan. The applicants now wish to carry out their business hours from 0500hrs - 2300hrs Monday to Sunday.

4.0 Relevant History 4.1 In March 2015 permission was approved for a hybrid planning application (part

outline, part full) for a single composite development of:

A new community stadium for Boston United Football Club, 3G All Weather floodlit pitch and a roundabout junction on the A16.

A new distributor road connecting the A16 with London Road. Re-Alignment of the Town’s Drain and extension to Wyberton Sports Ground. Erection of up to 500 dwellings. Erection of a food store (Class A1) and petrol filling station. Erection of commercial and leisure uses (Classes A3, A4 and A5 –

restaurant, public house and hot food takeaway). Erection of a 60 bed (approximate) hotel, in outline with all matters except

access reserved.

at land known as The Quadrant, Wyberton. (ref B/14/0165)

4.2 The outline consent was granted with 50 planning conditions and was subject to a s106 agreement.

4.3 In 2017, an application for the approval of reserved matters for residential development including 91 dwellings (phase 1) and 56 dwellings (phase 2) was approved. This application also included discharge of various conditions attached to permission B/14/0165 which related to drainage, protected species, archaeology, bio-diversity and flood risk mitigation.

Page 49

4.4 As Members are aware, various road works, including the new roundabout on the A16 and residential development to the west of the roundabout has commenced on this site and the piling has been completed on the main stand of the stadium. This is not in breach of any planning condition or the terms of the s106 agreement.

4.5 Condition 28 attached to the outline permission requires that all reserved matters relating this scheme shall not exceed the amounts stated in the approved master plan in terms of dwelling numbers, gross supermarket floor space or commercial leisure floor space and the development shall follow as far as practicable the indicative master plan drawing. A copy of the Masterplan is attached as Appendix 1.

4.6 Condition 42 attached to the outline approval restricts the gross floor-space of the combined class A3, A4 and A5 uses to 2,200sqm. The proposed use is a mix of both A1 and A3 uses. Whilst an A1 use does not accord with the above condition it is considered that the A3 element of the use is the dominant use and is sufficient to ensure that this current application meets the objectives of this condition. This type of operation may also include an element of A5 use i.e. hot food takeaways.

4.7 In April of this year, an application for the approval of reserved matters was granted for the construction of a drive thru restaurant (mixed use comprising class A1 and class A3) plus internal roadway, parking area and associated development at plot A, The Quadrant, Wyberton. Plot A lies opposite plot B. The intended user of the building was at that time KFC. Approval was granted subject to 4 conditions (ref B/17/0508).

4.8 Condition 4 attached to this approval which relates to business hours states:

The premises shall not be open to the public except between the following periods: 7am to 2am on Mondays to Saturdays 11am to 12 midnight on Sundays and Bank Holidays Reason: To accord with the applicants stated intensions, in the interests of the amenity of the area and to accord with the objectives of the Local Plan

4.9 A further application for the approval of reserved matters for a different

development on plot A to the scheme approved in April 2018 has now been submitted. The report relating to this application forms part of this agenda. (ref B/18/0348).

4.10 Advertisement consent has been approved for various signs relating to Costa

Coffee was approved in March of this year (ref B/17/0507).

Page 50

5.0 Relevant Policy

Boston Borough Adopted Local Plan 5.1 The development plan consists of the saved policies of the Boston Borough Local

Plan (adopted 1999). Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The land is within countryside as defined in the Boston Borough Local Plan

5.3 The saved Policies within Boston Borough Local Plan of relevance to this application are as follows: G1 – Amenity G2- Wildlife and landscape resources G3 – Foul and surface water disposal G6 – Vehicular & Pedestrian Access G10 –External lighting schemes C01- Development in the countryside

South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 (SELLP)

5.4 As discussed at the last Committee meeting, those policies which have attracted no objections as contained within the SELLP now attribute significant weight. These policies attracted only limited weight at the time the previous application on this site was determined.

5.5 The policies contained within the SELLP which now have significant weight which

are relevant to the application are as follows: Policy 1 Spatial Strategy

Amongst other things, this policy indicates that in the countryside development will be permitted that is necessary to such a location and/or where it can be demonstrated that it meets the sustainable development needs of the area in terms of economic, community or environmental benefit.

Policy 2: Development Management

This policy indicates that planning permission will be granted for proposals provided that sustainable development considerations are met in relation to, amongst other things, size, scale, layout, density, design, access and impact on the amenity, trees, character and appearance of the area and the relationship to existing development and land uses. Policy 3: Design of new development This policy encourages the use of high quality and inclusive design and layout which improves the character and quality of an area and resists designs which are inappropriate to the local area or which fails to maximise opportunities for improving the character of an area.

Page 51

Policy 36: Vehicle and Cycle Parking

This policy sets out minimum vehicle and parking spaces for certain types of development unless a high quality-design can demonstrate that a lower standard of provision delivers the requirements set out in the policy. This matter is discussed below.

National Planning Policy Framework (2018)

5.6 The outline permission relating to the whole of this development, including the commercial elements of the scheme was granted having regard to the sustainability objectives of the NPPF (2012). However, the planning principles in the revised Framework (2018) with regard to the design, to provide a good standard of amenity, to proactively drive and support sustainable economic development and to actively manage patterns of growth to make fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling remain relevant to this application.

6.0 Representations 6.1 As a result of publicity no representations have been received.

7.0 Consultations 7.1 Wyberton Parish Council has not yet commented. 7.2 County Highway Authority has no objections. 7.3 Environmental Health Manager has no objections.

7.4 Environment Agency has not commented.

8.0 Planning Issues and Discussions 8.1 The principle of this development has been established by the approval of

reserved matters for virtually the same scheme as currently proposed which was granted earlier this year. As indicated the only difference between the previous scheme and the current scheme is the proposed business hours and pedestrian link to the footway to the north. However as indicated above, since this is a fresh application all matters, including design, parking, layout etc need to be considered again.

Proposed business hours- justification statement

8.2 The applicant has submitted the following statement in support of this application

to allow the business to be open from 0500hrs to 2300hrs Mondays to Sundays instead of 6am to 10pm Mondays to Sundays as set by condition 4 attached to approval B/17/0506.

Page 52

‘By extending the opening time by an hour, the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers will not be affected as it will spread out the amount of people using the morning hours. This extended morning hours will highly benefit people working in Boston using the A16, the main road running to and from Peterborough. The A16 runs through many villages and towns such as Spalding. A large proportion of people will pass the Costa driving to Boston town centre from the villages for jobs or going from Boston to the city of Peterborough in the opposite direction. The local residents travelling to work will be highly benefited by the extended morning hours.

List of businesses with extended opening hours Shops and Amenities

Distance from Proposed Site (Approx.)

Opening Time

KFC (to be built as part of the Quadrant Phase 1 development)

0.1miles

7am to 2am on Mondays to Saturdays 11 am to 12 midnight on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

60 Bed Hotel (to be built as part of the development)

0.2miles

24 hrs

Asda’s Superstore and Garage

1.8miles

24hrs

Tesco’s Superstore and Garage

2.5miles

6am – 12am

Wyberton Sports Ground

0.5miles

11am – 11pm

McDonalds Boston

1.6miles

24 hrs

‘For residents departing and arriving to Boston, the nearest station to the site at 1.7 miles away, they would be able to get a drink on the route to and from their home and the station. The first train from Boston train station, the nearest station to the site, is at 6:13am and the [last train departs at] 22:29pm. Extending the opening hours of Costa Coffee outlet for an hour in the morning and evening will highly benefit the residents travelling to work and also people travelling from other places to work in Boston as well as people finishing their activities. Also as the road normally gets busier during the morning hours before work starts, extending the opening time will not have negative impact on surrounding areas such as businesses or residential properties that will be built. We therefore request to extend the opening hours from 05.00 – 23.00hrs Monday to Sunday’.

Page 53

8.3 The Environmental Health Manager has no objections to these extended business

hours. 8.4 It should also be noted that the proposed operating times for the proposed two

units on plot A to the south of the site to be operated by Greggs and Burger King which also forms part of this agenda are as follows:

Burger Opening hours

Burger King from 07.00 – 02.00hrs on Mondays to Saturdays and 11.00 – 00.00hrs on Sundays and bank holidays. Greggs Opening hours Greggs from 06.00 – 18.00hrs everyday

Design and layout 8.5 The design of the proposed building and the proposed palette of materials to be

used in the construction of this building are indicated above. The proposed building will be set back about 8m from the southern boundary of the site fronting on the partly completed road that will lead to the proposed football stadium. It will also be about 12.5m from the site’s western boundary which fronts onto the A16. Vehicular access to the site will be some 75m from the new A16 roundabout and about 12m from the proposed access that will serve the new building on plot A to the south, on the opposite side of the road. It is not intended to construct a new vehicular access onto the A16.

8.6 It is proposed to construct an internal road within the site which will serve a car

park consisting of 27 car spaces and a proposed drive- thru facility. Entrance to and exit from this facility will be off the same vehicular access. A new footpath has been constructed along the northern boundary of the site from the toucan crossing on the A16 which will link up with a new footpath that will serve the stadium. A new pedestrian crossing will be provided within the site which will link up with the existing footpath along the northern boundary. It is proposed to plant trees and shrubs within the site and around the boundaries of the site as part of a comprehensive landscaping scheme.

8.7 The design of the proposed building is contemporary and will not appear out of

place given its roadside location. This type of facility is now commonplace along many main roads elsewhere in the county and will look significantly different to the proposed facility to the south on plot A.

8.8 The site is within countryside is it countryside within the SELLP and along a busy

and important artery into the town. The proposed development will therefore be very prominent when approaching the town from the south and when leaving the town from the north. It will have an impact on the open characteristics of the area. However, as established when the previous application was determined, it is considered that the design of the scheme accords with the development principles established at outline stage and within the revised NPPF.

Page 54

8.9 It is not considered that this development will adversely affect visual amenity of

the character of the area.

Highway safety 8.10 Concerns were expressed by the Wyberton Parish Council at the time the

previous application was submitted regarding highway safety and the possibility of vehicles queuing back onto the highway. At that time, the applicant submitted a plan which demonstrated that the site could accommodate 8 queuing vehicles within the drive thru lane and a further 9 vehicles queued through the car park before entering the highway. Taking into account the 27 car parking spaces to be provided as part of this scheme, this development could therefore accommodate 44 vehicles before any overspill onto the highway. The current application includes the same plan as the previous scheme. This element of the layout has not changed.

8.11 Since the previous application was determined, those policies contained within

the Main Modifications of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 which have not attracted any objections carry significant weight. Policy 36 relates to vehicle and cycle parking. It indicates that for restaurants and cafes, 1 car space should be provided per 5m

2 of public dining area and for convenience retail

development 1 car space is required for 14m2.

8.12 This application is for a drive thru facility consisting partly of A1 use and partly A3

use. The car parking standards do not appear to directly apply to mixed use developments; especially drive thru facilities so it is difficult to accurately gauge how many car spaces are required by policy in this instance. The proposed building does however include a dining area which covers about 86sqm. Thus being the case, 17 car spaces would be required to meet this element of Policy 36. This development far exceeds this requirement.

8.13 There is a toucan pedestrian crossing over the A16 to the Boston side of the

roundabout which provides pedestrian access from the housing development to the west of the A16 (i.e. phase 1 and 2 in particular) to the proposed facility at plot B and the approved restaurant/drive thru facility on plot A.

8.14 There is also a pedestrian/cycle crossing over the partly built road next to this site

about 55m east from the A16 roundabout and about 5m from the proposed vehicular access that will serve this development. This will allow safe pedestrian/cycle crossing from this site to the proposed facility on the opposite side of the road (i.e. site A).

8.15 The submitted Transport Assessment indicates that it is expected that the vast

majority of the trips arriving and departing the proposed coffee outlet will be made as part of an overall journey with the trips already being part of the local highway network traffic flows, visiting the site as part of a linked trip. It also concludes that the proposed car parking provision is adequate for the size and operational needs of the proposed coffee outlet with drive-thru and that the overall impact on highways capacity or safety will be minimal due to the nature of the trips accessing and egressing the proposed development.

8.16 The County Highway Authority has no objections.

Page 55

9.0 Conclusion

9.1 The principle of this form of development on this site has already been established by the extant approval of reserved matters granted earlier this year. This application is essentially to change the business hours set by condition 4 attached to the previous approval. It is considered that this scheme and the revised business hours are acceptable and it is recommended that this application is approved subject to the conditions set out below

10.0 Recommendation

10.1 It is recommended that the Planning Committee grants the approval of reserved matters for this development subject to the following conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location plan ref 3606_L01 (1/6) Proposed site plan ref 3606_PL301 rev A (2A/6) Proposed elevations Costa Coffee –plot B ref 3606 _PL302A (3a/6) Proposed floor plan- Costa Coffee-plot B ref 3606_PL304 (4/6) Landscaping plan Costa Coffee –plot B ref 3606_PL305 (5/6) Internal Queuing capacity – the Quadrant – plot B – Costa ref 007 rev A01 (6/6)


3. All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details within 6 months of the date of the first occupation of any building or completion of development whichever is the sooner. Any trees, plants, grassed areas which within a period of 5 years from the date of planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the first available planting season with others of similar size species or quality, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.


4. The premises shall not be open to the public except between the hours of 0500hrs -2300hrs Monday to Sunday.

Reason: To accord with the applicant’s stated intensions, in the interests of the amenity of the area and to accord with the objectives of Local Plan policy G1.

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.

Lisa Hughes

Growth Manager

Page 56


Application for approval of reserved matters for the construction of retail unit

(mixed use comprising class A3 and class A5) and drive-thru restaurant

(mixed use comprising class A1 and class A3), plus internal roadway, parking area and

associated development

Plot A, The Quadrant, Land off A16, Wyberton, Boston, PE21 7TD

Applicant: Mr Burney, Burney Estate Ltd

Page 57

Agenda Item 3

Page 58



Reference No: B/18/0348 Expiry Date: 15-Oct-2018 Extension of Time: 19-Oct-2018 Application Type: Approval of Reserved Matters Proposal: Application for approval of reserved matters for the construction of

retail unit (mixed use comprising class A3 and class A5) and drive-thru restaurant (mixed use comprising class A1 and class A3), plus internal roadway, parking area and associated development

Site: Plot A, The Quadrant, Land off A16, Wyberton, Boston, PE21 7TD Applicant: Mr Burney, Burney Estates Ltd Agent: Mr Andrew Cooke, Dovetail Architects Ltd Ward: Wyberton Parish: Wyberton Parish Council Case Officer: Trevor Thompson Third Party Reps: None Link to application: B/18/0348 Recommendation: GRANT

Page 59



1.1 This application has been presented to the Planning Committee since it involves a

different type of development to the one which was approved by Committee in April of this year and given the planning history relating to the Quadrant development.

2.0 Application and site Proposal 2.1 This application is the second of three applications which relate to development at

The Quadrant which forms part of this agenda. 2.2 The application site is known as Plot A which located to the east of the new A16

roundabout at Wyberton. The site forms a parcel of land which occupies about 0.3 hectares and is currently vacant. Plot A is located to the south of the road that runs, in part, from the A16 roundabout to the proposed football stadium which has not yet been built. This stretch of road is partly built and currently extends about 90m from the roundabout. Plot B lies on the northern side which is subject to a separate planning application for the erection of a drive thru coffee shop. The report relating to this application is also on this agenda.

2.2 In April of this year an application for approval of reserved matters for the

construction of a fast food restaurant with drive-thru facility (mixed use comprising class A1 and class A3) plus internal roadway, parking area and associated development at The Quadrant, off the A16 Wyberton was granted subject to 4 conditions (ref B/17/0508). It was intended at that time that KFC would operate from the site.

2.3 This application is for the approval of reserved matters for a different scheme to

that approved this year. The application is for the construction of retail unit (mixed use comprising class A3 and class A5) and drive-thru restaurant (mixed use comprising class A1 and class A3), plus internal roadway, parking area and associated development. It is intended that the user of the retail unit will be Greggs and the operator of the drive thru restaurant will be Burger King.

2.4 It is proposed that vehicluar access to the site will be off this partly constructed

link road and about 50m east from the A16 roundabout. It is not intended to construct a new vehicular access onto the A16. The application is accompanied by a new transport statement (dated August 2018), the contents of which are discussed below. There is a pedestrian ‘toucan’ crossing across the A16 close to the new roundabout which provides a pedestrian crossing over the A16.

2.5 The proposed retail unit (Greggs) will be about 9.4m wide by 12.2m long covering

112sqm. It will have a mono pitched roof which will be a minimum of 4m raising to 4.6m and will be sited next to the front (northern) boundary of the site, next to the site’s vehicular access. The building will be constructed of Kingspan Micro rib panels on the elevations (silver and grey) with a light grey metal roof covering.

2.6 The proposed drive–thru building (Burger King) will be over 13m wide and over

26m long covering about 257sqm. It will have an irregular shaped footprint with flat roofs covering various segments of the building ranging from 3m high, to 5m and 6m high.

Page 60

The building will be set back towards the rear (southern) boundary next to the internal access road. The building will have a varied pallet of materials on the external face including yellow multi brickwork, ceramic tiles, cream rendered panels, red panels and wood effect panels. The flat roofs will be covered with light grey plastic roof covering. It is intended to provide 39 parking bays (plus 2 waiting bays) to serve both facilities.

2.7 The submitted plans show the display of advertisements on each of the proposed

two buildings. However the display of these signs does not form part of this application and will be subject to separate applications.




A new distributor road connecting the A16 with London Road. Re-Alignment of the Town’s Drain and extension to Wyberton Sports Ground. Erection of up to 500 dwellings. Erection of a food store (Class A1) and petrol filling station. Erection of commercial and leisure uses (Classes A3, A4 and A5 –


access reserved at land known as The Quadrant, Wyberton (ref B/14/0165)

3.2 The outline consent was granted with 50 planning conditions and was subject to a s106 agreement.


3.4 As Members are aware, various road works, including the new roundabout on the A16 and residential development to the west of the roundabout has commenced on this site and piling has been completed on the main stand of the stadium. This is not in breach of any planning condition or the terms of the s106 agreement.

3.5 Condition 28 attached to the outline permission requires that all reserved matters relating this scheme shall not exceed the amounts stated in the approved master plan in terms of dwelling numbers, gross supermarket floor space or commercial leisure floor space and the development shall follow as far as practicable the indicative master plan drawing. A copy of the Masterplan is attached as Appendix 1.

3.6 Condition 42 attached to the outline approval restricts the gross floor-space of the combined class A3, A4 and A5 uses to 2,200sqm. The proposed use is a mix of A1, A3 and A5 uses. Whilst an A1 use does not accord with the above condition it is considered that the A3 elements of the use is the dominant use and is sufficient to ensure that this current application meets the objectives of this condition.

Page 61

3.7 In April of this year, an application for the approval of reserved matters was granted for the construction of a drive thru restaurant (mixed use comprising class A1 and class A3) plus internal roadway, parking area and associated development on this site. The intended user of the building was at that time KFC. Approval was granted subject to 4 conditions (ref; B/17/0508). Condition 4 attached to this approval which relates to business hours states:

The premises shall not be open to the public except between the following periods: 7am to 2am on Mondays to Saturdays 11am to 12 midnight on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Reason: To accord with the applicants stated intentions, in the interests of the amenity of the area and to accord with the objectives of Local Plan.

3.8 It should be noted that this condition does not relate to delivery times.

3.9 In April of this year an application for the approval of reserved matters for the construction of a drive thru coffee shop (mixed use comprising class A1 and A3) plus new internal roadway and parking area and associated development at plot B (opposite plot A) was granted subject to 4 conditions. The intended user of the building will be ‘Costa Coffee’ (ref B/17/0506). A further application for the approval of reserved matters for a drive thru coffee shop on plot B has been submitted and the report relating to this application forms part of this agenda (ref B/18/0321)

4.0 Relevant Policy

Boston Borough Adopted Local Plan

4.1 The development plan consists of the saved policies of the Boston Borough Local


4.2 The land is within countryside as defined in the Boston Borough Local Plan.

4.3 The saved Policies within Boston Borough Local Plan of relevance to this application are as follows: G1 – Amenity G2- Wildlife and landscape resources G3 – Foul and surface water disposal G6 – Vehicular & Pedestrian Access G10 –External lighting schemes C01- Development in the countryside

Page 62


4.4 As discussed at the last Committee meeting, those policies which have attracted no objections as contained within the SELLP now attribute significant weight. These policies attracted only limited weight at the time the previous application on this site was determined.

4.5 The policies contained within the SELLP which now have significant weight

which are relevant to the application are as follows: Policy 1 Spatial Strategy

Amongst other things, this policy indicates that in the countryside development will be permitted that is necessary to such a location and/or where it can be demonstrated that it meets the sustainable development needs of the area in terms of economic, community or environmental benefit


This policy indicates that planning permission will be granted for proposals provided that sustainable development considerations are met in relation to, amongst other things, size, scale, layout, density, design, access and impact on the amenity, trees, character and appearance of the area and the relationship to existing development and land uses. Policy 3: Design of new development This policy encourages the use of high quality and inclusive design and layout which improves the character and quality of an area and resists designs which are inappropriate to the local area or which fails to maximise opportunities for improving the character of an area. Policy 36: Vehicle and Cycle Parking


National Planning Policy Framework (2018)


Page 63

5.0 Representations 5.1 As a result of publicity no representations have been received. 6.0 Consultations 6.1 Wyberton Parish Council has ‘no comment to make’. 6.2 County Highway Authority has no objections 6.3 Environmental Health Manager has no objections

6.4 Environment Agency has no objections subject to one condition 7.0 Planning Issues and Discussions 7.1 The main issues in the determination of the application will therefore be the

design and layout of the development and its impact on the character and appearance of the area and secondly, impact on highway safety.

7.2 The principle of this form of development on this site has been established by the

approval of a similar scheme earlier this year. Also, the principle of an A3 or A5 use on this site is further established by the outline approval as indicated above and in particular condition 28 attached to this approval which requires the development to follow as far as practicable the indicative master plan drawing which is attached as Appendix 1.

7.3 The previous application for development on this site which was approved in April

of this year was for a drive thru restaurant (mixed use comprising class A1 and A3). The approved building covered 235sqm in floor space and it was intended to provide 42 car spaces (plus 2 waiting bays) to serve this facility.

7.4 In comparison, the proposed building to be operated by Greggs will have a

footprint of 112sqm and the proposed building to be operated by Burger King will have a foot print covering 257sqm. The collective footprint for the two buildings will therefore be 369sqm. It is intended to provide 39 spaces (plus 2 waiting spaces) to serve this development.

7.5 The proposed business hours will be as follows:

Burger King Opening hours

Burger King from 07.00 – 02.00hrs on Mondays to Saturdays and 11.00 – 00.00hrs on Sundays and bank holidays. Greggs Opening hours Greggs from 06.00 – 18.00hrs everyday

Page 64

7.6 The proposed business hours to be operated by Burger King are the same as those which were to be operated by KFC. As indicated above, these business hours were subject to condition 4 attached to the previous approval. Also, the proposed business hours to be operated by Costa Coffee at plot B opposite the site, subject of application B/18/0321, will be between the hours of 0500hrs -2300hrs Monday to Sunday.

7.7 The applicant considers that ‘...the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers will not be affected as it will spread out the amount of people using the morning hours. This morning hours will highly benefit people working in Boston using the A16, the main road running to and from Peterborough. The A16 runs through many villages and towns such as Spalding. A large proportion of people will pass the Burger King and Greggs driving to Boston town centre from the villages for jobs or going from Boston to the city of Peterborough in the opposite direction. The local residents travelling to work will be highly benefited by the opening hours’. The applicant adds that ‘...as the road normally gets busier during the morning hours before work starts, the opening time will not have negative impact on surrounding areas such as businesses or residential properties that will be built.’

7.8 The Environmental Health Manager has no objections.

Design and layout

7.9 The siting, materials and layout of the site are detailed above and clearly the main change between the previous scheme on this site and the current one subject to this application is that two separate commercial units are now proposed instead of one single business unit operating from the site. As with the previous application it is intended to install an internal road and a drive thru facility. Entrance to and exit from these facilities will be off the same vehicular access. It is not intended to create a new vehicular access off the A16 though it is intended to provide a new footpath link from the A16 to the site.

7.10 The designs of the proposed buildings are contemporary and will not appear out of place given the site’s roadside location. These types of facility are now commonplace along many main roads elsewhere in the county and will appear different to the proposed facility at Plot B to the north. The site is within countryside and along a busy and important artery into the town. The proposed development will therefore be very prominent when approaching the town from the south and when leaving the town from the north. It will have an impact on the open characteristics of the area. However, it is considered that this development accords with the development principles established at outline stage and will not adversely affect visual amenity of the character of the area.

Highway safety

7.11 Concerns were expressed at the time the previous application was submitted relating to highway safety and the possibility of vehicles queuing back onto the highway. In order to overcome these concerns the applicant submitted an additonal plan which demonstrated that the site could accommodate 10 queuing vehicles within the drive thru lane and a further 14 vehicles queued through the car park before entering the highway. Taking into account the 42 car parking spaces that were to be provided, the previous scheme would therefore have been able to accommodate 66 vehicles before any overspill onto the highway. This Committee considered this scheme to be acceptable.

Page 65

7.12 A similar plan has been submitted with this current application. It shows that the

site can accommodate 9 car spaces within the drive thru lane and a further 6 car spaces queued through the car park before entering the highway. Taking into account the 41 car parking spaces, the site can accommodate 56 cars before any overspill onto the highway.

7.13 Since the previous application was determined, those policies contained within

the Main Modifications of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan which have not attracted any objections carry significant weight. Policy 36 relates to vehicle and cycle parking. It indicates that for restaurants and cafes, 1 car space should be provided per 5m

2 of public dining area and for convenience retail development

(class A1), 1 car space is required for 14m2.

7.14 This application is for the construction of retail unit (mixed use comprising class

A3 and class A5) and drive-thru restaurant (mixed use comprising class A1 and class A3). The car parking standards do not specifically apply to mixed use developments, especially drive thru facilities so it is difficult to accurately gauge how many car spaces are required by Policy in this instance. However it is estimated that a total of 28 spaces would be required to accord with the car parking standards set by Policy 26. This application includes the provision of 39 spaces (plus 2 waiting spaces) to serve this development. Thus the proposed car parking exceeds policy requirements.

7.15 The County Highway Authority has no objections.

8.0 Summary and Conclusion 8.1 This form of commercial development on this site has already been established by

the extant approval granted earlier this year and the outline approval detailed above granted in 2015. This application is however for the construction of two buildings on this site as opposed to one granted earlier this year. It is considered that the design, layout, business hours and car parking arrangements are satisfactory and it is therefore recommended that this application is approved subject to the conditions set out below.

9.0 Recommendation

9.1 It is recommended that the Planning Committee grants the approval of reserved

matters for this development subject to the following conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Page 66

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location plan ref 3606_L01A (1/7) Proposed site plan – plot A ref 3606_PL500.1D (2/7) Proposed floor plan –plot A-Greggs ref 3606_PL505 (3/7) Proposed elevation- plot A-Greggs ref 3606_P506 (4/7) Proposed floor plan – plot A –Burger King ref 3606_PL507 (5/7) Proposed elevation –plot A-Burger King ref 3606_PL508 (6/7) Internal car parking and queuing capacity ref 011 rev A01 (7/7)


3. No development shall take place above ground level until full details of hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These works shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved details. The scheme shall include

a) boundary treatment b) hard surface materials c) planting schedules (species, sizes densities) d) existing trees to be retained/removed

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Section 197 of the 1990 Act which requires Local Planning Authorities to ensure, where appropriate, adequate provision is made for the preservation or planting of trees, and to ensure that the approved scheme is implemented satisfactorily. The condition accords with Adopted Local Plan Policy G1

4. All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details within 6 months of the date of the first occupation of any building or completion of development whichever is the sooner. Any trees, plants, grassed areas which within a period of 5 years from the date of planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the first available planting season with others of similar size species or quality, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Section 197 of the 1990 Act which requires Local Planning Authorities to ensure, where appropriate, adequate provision is made for the preservation or planting of trees, and to ensure that the approved scheme is implemented satisfactorily. The condition accords with Adopted Local Plan Policy G1

Page 67

5. The premises shall not be open to the public except between the following hours:

Burger King Opening hours 07.00 – 02.00hrs on Mondays to Saturdays and 11.00 – 00.00hrs on Sundays and bank holidays. Greggs Opening hours 06.00 – 18.00hrs everyday Reason: To accord with the applicant’s stated intensions, in the interests of the amenity of the area and to accord with the objectives of Local Plan policy G1.

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. Lisa Hughes Growth Manager

Page 68


Erection of showroom for sales and display of bathroom equipment and associated

merchandise (Class A1), plus new car park and associated development

Land south of Wallace Way, The Quadrant, Wyberton, Boston, PE21 7TD

Parkland Developments

Applicant: Parkland Developments

Page 69

Agenda Item 4

Page 70



Reference No: B/18/0207 Expiry Date: 19-Sep-2018 Application Type: Full Planning Permission Proposal: Erection of showroom for sales and display of bathroom equipment

and associated merchandise (Class A1), plus new car park and associated development

Site: Land south of Wallace Way, The Quadrant, Wyberton, Boston, PE21 7TD

Applicant: Parkland Developments Agent: Mr Steven Dunn, Steven Dunn Architects Limited Ward: Wyberton Parish: Wyberton Parish Council Case Officer: Trevor Thompson Third Party Reps: None Link to application: B/18/0207 Recommendation: GRANT

Page 71



1.1 This application has been presented to the Planning Committee given the history

of the site and the scale of the on-going/planned development 2.0 Application Site and Proposal 2.1 This is the third application which relates to development at The Quadrant which

forms part of this agenda. 2.2 The main part of the application site occupies 0.2 hectares and is currently

vacant. It is located south east of the roundabout along the distribution road approximately 130m west of the new A16 roundabout. The application site also includes part of the distribution road between these two roundabouts. This is because the distribution road is not yet adopted by the Lincolnshire County Council. There is new housing development being constructed to the north of the site and further to the west lies residential properties which front onto London Road. To the south lies open fields. The site forms part of a proposed car park as indentified on the indicative ‘masterplan’ which forms part of the approved hybrid application for the Quadrant development (see below).

2.3 It is proposed to construct a retail unit for the sale and display of bathroom and

kitchen equipment and associated merchandise together with parking and servicing facilities. The floor space of the proposed building will cover approximately 490sqm and it will be single storey in height. The building will be about 28m long by about 17m wide. It will accommodate a showroom, store, toilets and staff room. It is intended to construct a new vehicular access off a service road which connects into the roundabout fronting the site. Immediately to the south of the proposed building it is proposed to provide a service and loading area. To the rear of the proposed building, it is proposed to provide an access road and car park accommodating 13 spaces including 2 disabled spaces to serve this development. A separate pedestrian access is proposed directly off the distributor road and associated footpath network which lies along the northern boundary.

2.3 The intended occupier of the retail outlet will be Turnbull and Co Ltd. The

company already has a building supplies counter at Hamilton Way, Boston and a plumbing and heating supplies counter at Boston Trade Park. The proposed retail unit will be open to trade and retail sales. It is intended that both the building supplies and plumbing/heating supplies outlets in Boston will be retained.

2.4 The application is accompanied by a Planning Statement and a Retail Statement

which sets out the rationale behind this development, the impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre and demonstrates the interrelationship between this scheme and the overall ‘masterplan’ of ‘The Quadrant’ development detailed below.

2.5 This is an application for full planning permission and is not an application for the

approval of reserved matters. This is because the application does not accord with a condition imposed on the outline/hybrid approval so an application for the approval of reserved matters cannot be submitted.

Page 72




A new distributor road connecting the A16 with London Road. Re-Alignment of the Town’s Drain and extension to Wyberton Sports Ground. Erection of up to 500 dwellings. Erection of a food store (Class A1) approximately 7000sqm and petrol filling

station. Erection of commercial and leisure uses (Classes A3, A4 and A5 –


access reserved at land known as The Quadrant, Wyberton (ref B/14/0165).

3.2 The application sought the delivery of a new football stadium linked to the mixed use development to the west of the A16. This mixed use development was considered as ‘enabling development’. The applicant at that time explained that the success of the project relied on the provision of ‘enabling development’ to close a funding gap. This means that the mixed use development of housing, retail, commercial and leisure uses would not have been proposed without the stadium. The outline consent was granted with 50 planning conditions and was subject to a s106 agreement.


3.4 Various road works, including the new roundabout on the A16, the roundabout on the distributor road and the road linking the two have been completed. Also residential development to the north of the roundabout has commenced on this site and the piling has been completed on the main stand to the stadium. Sixty eight dwellings have been completed and 34 dwellings are under construction. The Master-plan shows housing land to the west of the site and a hotel to the north on the opposite side of the distributor road.

3.5 Condition 28 attached to the outline permission requires that all reserved matters relating to this scheme shall not exceed the amounts stated in the approved master plan in terms of dwelling numbers, gross supermarket floor space or commercial leisure floor space and the development shall follow as far as practicable the indicative master plan drawing. A copy of the Masterplan is attached as Appendix 1.

3.6 Conditions 39, 40 and 41 which deals with retail/commercial leisure attached to the hybrid approval are relevant to this application. These conditions are set out below.

Page 73

39 The net sales retail floorspace of the foodstore hereby approved shall not exceed 4200 sqm.

Reason: In accordance with the details of the application and so that any

impact on existing centres is defined as a maximum in accordance with the details of the application.

40 The proportion of non- food (comparison goods) sales floorspace to

unrestricted food sales floorspace shall not exceed 30% of the total net floor area.



41 There shall be no subdivision of the foodstore hereby approved to

individual units with a gross floorspace of less than 500sqm and no more than 25% of net retail floorspace of any sub-divided unit shall be used for non –food sales



3.7 The hybrid outline approval and the conditions detailed above are a material

consideration in the determination of this application.

4.0 Relevant Policy

Boston Borough Adopted Local Plan 1999 4.1 The development plan consists of the saved policies of the Boston Borough Local


4.2 The land is within countryside as defined in the Boston Borough Local Plan.

4.3 The saved Policies within Boston Borough Local Plan of relevance to this

application are as follows: G1 – Amenity G2- Wildlife and landscape resources G3 – Foul and surface water disposal G6 – Vehicular & Pedestrian Access G10 –External lighting schemes C01- Development in the countryside

4.4 None of the relevant retail and town centre policies in the Boston Borough Local

Plan were saved in 2007 (ie RTC 3 and RTC 9)

Page 74


4.4 As discussed at the last Committee meeting, those policies which have attracted

no objections as contained within the SELLP now attribute significant weight. Policies which have attracted objections may only attribute limited weight.

4.5 The site is located within a large area allocated in the SELLP for housing though

this allocation does not acknowledge the retail and commercial uses that have been approved in addition to the 500 dwellings which form part of the Hybrid approval. In addition, compared to the adopted settlement boundary for Boston, the settlement boundary in the SELLP now includes land to the west of the A16 (including the application site) as now within the development limits of Boston. The policies contained within the SELLP which now have significant weight which are relevant to the application are as follows:


This policy indicates that planning permission will be granted for proposals provided that sustainable development considerations are met in relation to, amongst other things: size, scale, layout, density, design, access and impact on the amenity, trees, character and appearance of the area and the relationship to existing development and land uses. Policy 3: Design of new development This policy encourages the use of high quality and inclusive design and layout which improves the character and quality of an area and resists designs which are inappropriate to the local area or which fails to maximise opportunities for improving the character of an area. Policy 27: Additional retail provision This policy identifies that up to 17,294 square metres (net) of additional comparison goods floor-space is expected to be needed within Boston Borough up to 2031, and that it should be provided within the Town Centre.

Policy 36: Vehicle and Cycle Parking

This policy sets out minimum vehicle and parking spaces for certain types of development unless a high quality-design can demonstrate that a lower standard of provision delivers the requirements set out in the policy. This matter is discussed below. National Planning Policy Framework (2018)


Page 75

4.7 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF indicates that plans and decisions should apply to a

presumption in favour of sustainable development. It adds that for decision making, this means;

c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date

development plan without delay; or

d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or

ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

4.8 The relevant retail policies in the Boston Borough Local Plan are out of date which

means that the tilted balance in paragraph 11 is therefore triggered. Local Plan Policy C01 which resists development in the countryside unless supported by other Local Plan policies may only be applied limited weight given the planning history and the emerging urban characteristics of the site. There are no protected areas or assets of particular importance as defined within the revised NPPF that are required to have regard to when assessing this application.

4.9 Paragraph 80 of the NPPF supports economic growth and productivity taking into

account both local needs and the wider opportunities for development. Paragraph 82 indicates that ‘...decisions should recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors. This includes making provision for clusters or networks of knowledge and data-driven, creative or high technology industries; and for storage and distribution operations at a variety of scales and in suitably accessible locations’

4.10 Section 7 deals with ensuring the vitality of town centres and this is particularly

relevant to this application. Paragraph 86 indicates that Local Planning Authorities should apply a sequential test for main town centre uses which are neither in an existing centre nor in accordance with an up to date plan. It adds that main town centre uses should be located in town centres and only if suitable sites are not available (or expected to become available within a reasonable period) should out of centre uses be considered.

4.10 Paragraph 87 adds that ‘when considering edge of centre and out of centre

proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites which are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale, so that opportunities to utilise suitable town centre or edge of centre sites are fully explored’.

Page 76

4.11 Paragraph 89 states that where applications for retail development outside of

town centres are proposed, which are not in accordance with the up to date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment of the development is over a proportionate, locally set floor-space threshold. If there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500sq.m.

4.12 A Retail Assessment has been submitted with this application and this matter is

discussed below.

5.0 Representations 5.1 No letters of representation have been received as a result of publicity.

6.0 Consultations 6.1 County Highway Authority has no objections.

6.2 Environment Agency has no objections but recommends that a condition is

imposed which relates to a Flood Warning Evacuation Plan.

6.3 Environmental Health Manager has no objections. 7.0 Planning Issues and Discussions 7.1 This application is located on land which forms part of ‘The Quadrant’

development and is for the construction of one retail unit on land which was identified in the indicative ‘Master plan’ as a car park that would serve the intended food-store which formed part of the hybrid outline approval. Although this application is for full planning permission and not for the approval of reserved matters, the previously approved scheme is a significant material consideration.

7.2 The key planning issues in the determination of this application are:

The principle of development having regard to Local Plan policies, the SELLP and the objectives of the NPPF

The sequential test and retail assessment The impact on the deliverability of the approved ‘Masterplan’ in terms of

enabling development Design and layout Impacts on highway safety and residential amenity The Planning balance

The principle of development having regard to Local Plan policies, the SELLP and the objectives of the NPPF

Page 77

7.3 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that

determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As indicated above the relevant retail policies in the Local Plan are not saved and although these policies still form part of the development, no weight may be given to them. Thus the ‘material considerations’ in this instance will be the objectives of the relevant saved polices in the Local Plan, the NPPF and those policies which may be attributed weight in the SELLP. Since the relevant retail Local Plan policies are out of date, the tilted balance in paragraph 11 of the NPPF in favour of sustainable development is therefore triggered. Furthermore, the compatibility (or otherwise) of this scheme with the overall concept of the Quadrant development is also a material consideration of substantial weight.

7.4 Under normal circumstances the development of a retail outlet of this form and

size would normally be expected to be located within retail or industrial park or similar location within the settlement boundary of the town in order to conform with Local Plan policies. Approval of such forms of retail development outside of such areas, especially within countryside locations would normally need special justification.

7.5 Although this site is within countryside as defined in the Local Plan, regard must

also be had to the emerging changing nature and characteristics of the surroundings from a former countryside environment to an urban one especially given the intended future commercial and residential uses adjacent to the site as defined in the approved ‘master plan’. Also, given that the site forms part of an allocated housing site within the newly defined settlement boundary of Boston as defined in the SELLP are factors which carry significant weight.

7.6 The principle of commercial development on the site and within the surrounding

area has been established by the approval and commencement of the Quadrant development. Thus, although this application is for retail development (i.e. class A1) and that the hybrid outline permission approved the principle of a 7000sqm food store to the south of this site which is also a Class A1 use, the main issue in policy terms is whether the nature of the proposed retail outlet is compatible with the changing nature of the Quadrant development and the surrounding environment given the objectives of other development plan policies. Furthermore an additional factor to consider is where there is conflict with the development plan, whether there is sufficient justification to set aside policy in order to secure the delivery of the stadium and associated community, economic and social benefits.

The sequential test and retail assessment

7.7 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out 2 key tests that should be applied when assessing applications for town centre uses which are not in an existing town centre and which are not in accordance with an up to date Local Plan – the sequential test and the impact test. The Framework adds that the sequential test should be considered first as this may identify that there are preferable sites in town centres for accommodating main town centre uses (and therefore avoid the need to undertake the impact test). The sequential test should identify development that cannot be located in town centres, and which would then be subject to the impact test.

Page 78

7.8 The impact test determines whether there would be likely significant adverse impacts of locating main town centre development outside of existing town centres (and therefore whether the proposal should be refused in line with policy). Paragraph 27 of the NPPF indicates that when an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more identified factors defined in paragraph 26, the application should be refused.

7.9 As indicated above, Paragraph 89 states that where applications for retail development outside of town centres are proposed, which are not in accordance with an up to date Local Plan, Local Authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floor space threshold. If there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500sq.m. On its own this application falls below the threshold. However the scheme represents additional floor-space to the approved development which comprises a 7000sqm. food-store and a mix of A3, A4 and A5 uses. Therefore cumulatively the floor-space exceeds this threshold.

7.10 The applicant considers that it is not appropriate to carry out a typical sequential test in this instance given that whilst there may be alternative retail sites available within or on the edge of the town centre, the application site offers fundamental specific location benefits which are directly linked to the delivery of the stadium. Thus, it is argued, that based on the ‘enabling development’ case which was agreed at outline stage, it would not be appropriate to consider alternative sites in more central locations as part of the sequential test. This would seem to be a reasonable argument given ‘The Quadrant’ is a unique form of development in this area.

7.11 A detailed Retail Impact Assessment has therefore been submitted in support of this application in order to assess the impact of this retail development on nearby shopping centre in Boston and the overall retail strategy of the Quadrant proposal. It concludes that there is very limited potential for the proposed kitchen and bathroom showroom to give rise to concerns about vitality and viability of Boston Town Centre. It indicates that impact will largely fall upon existing out of centre facilities (e.g. Chain Bridge Retail Area) providing a comparable offer but this would be small in scale.

The impact on the deliverability of the approved ‘Masterplan’ in terms of enabling development

7.12 A significant factor in the determination of this application is the compatibility of the proposed kitchen and showroom retail unit within the context of the hybrid outline approval detailed above with particular regard to the associated enabling development which formed part of this approval.

7.13 The applicant points out that since the hybrid scheme was approved in 2015, the

retail market at national, regional and local level has evolved and a key reason behind this planning application is the opportunity to capture and respond to this changing market. The applicant also points out that there is a direct link between the enabling role of this scheme together with other funding initiatives and that proposal should be considered in the context of the opportunity to provide part of the necessary funding that is required for the construction of the stadium. The applicant considers that there is also a strong link between the two proposals and that they can coexist without having any adverse impacts effect with regard to planning, technical or environmental considerations. The concept of ‘enabling development’ has already been accepted by this Council.

Page 79

7.14 Furthermore, the applicant points out that costs associated with the project have

increased and whilst the scheme has been relatively successful in securing external sources of funding, it is clear from recent viability assessments that the enhanced retail land sales from the occupancy and agreement associated with this scheme is required as an additional component in order to support the delivery of the stadium. The applicant also says that the viability considerations that have recently been assessed to support the bid to Homes England to secure marginal viability funding under the terms of the Housing Infrastructure Fund has demonstrated that this additional unit is the minimum necessary in order to realise the delivery of the community stadium.

7.15 As indicated above, the proposed retail unit is to be constructed on a proposed

customer car park associated with the proposed food store as identified on the ‘master plan’ which is subject of condition 28 attached to approval B/14/0165. The applicant estimates that based on the indicative master plan, the car parking area to support the food store has the capacity to provide around 390 car spaces and that the proposed retail unit would result in the loss of around 70 of these car spaces which would leave in the region of around 320 car spaces. It should be noted that at the time the hybrid application was determined, this Council had no formal policy with regard to car parking standards. The applicant considers that the remaining 320 car spaces to serve the proposed food store would be adequate without compromising either its marketability or accessibility in planning terms.

7.16 There are some policies within the SELLP which may now be given significant

weight, including a car parking policy (i.e. policy 36). This policy requires 1 car space per 14sqm. for convenience retail (class A1) and 1 car space per 20sqm. for comparison retail (class A1). A proposed food store would be convenience retail whilst the proposed kitchen and bathroom showroom would be comparison retail. This being the case, a retail store of around 7000sqm as identified on the master plan, would require a total of 500 car spaces in order to accord with policy. The resultant expected 320 spaces falls well below this requirement and this may affect the delivery of a 7000sqm. food store. The assessment of the car parking area to serve the proposed development is discussed below.

7.17 The applicant points out that within the assessment of the hybrid application,

consideration was also given to the opportunity for shared trips between different uses as well as the preparation of a travel plan to encourage trips by means other than the motor car. The applicant also points out that although the development should be carried out generally in accordance with the master-plan, there is a certain amount of flexibility to adapt certain areas without compromising the scale and nature of the rest of the scheme. The proposed retail outlet does not impede any of the footprints of proposed buildings as shown on the master-plan, it would develop a small proportion of the car parking area associated with the food store and that there were no specific car parking requirements agreed for the food store when the hybrid application was determined since such matters could be agreed at reserved matters stage.

Page 80

7.18 Although this application does not meet the criteria set by SELLP Policy 36 with regard to the number of car spaces that would need to be required to serve a future food store of up to 7000sqm, it is considered that it would be difficult to refuse this application on the grounds relating to the loss of potential car spaces and that it would contravene the objectives of the approved ‘master-plan’. This is because no application for reserved matters approval has yet been submitted for the proposed food store and thus it is not known at this stage how large the store will be and how many car spaces would be required to serve it. A refusal on these grounds may be judged as premature and unreasonable. However, should this current application be approved and built, the amount of residual car space may dictate to some extent the eventual size of the intended food store and to some extent, the full delivery of the ‘master-plan’. It should also be noted that this current application is not for the approval of reserved matters but for full planning permission and is therefore not tied directly to the hybrid approval. The car parking standards with regard to the retail unit itself is discussed below.

Design and layout 7.19 The proposed retail unit will be rectangular in shape with a gable end on the

northern and southern elevations. The main walls will be clad with silver profiled steel sheets with Goosewing grey profiled sheets on the roof. The design of the building will incorporate large window display windows on each elevation with the main pedestrian access to the building from the car park and access road to the east. It is proposed to provide low level planting within the site to soften the overall appearance of this building. Vehicular access for both customers and deliveries will be from the access road to the south.

7.20 Paragraph 124 of the NPPF places emphasis on good design and indicates that

‘the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities’. Policy 3 of the SELLP encourages the use of high quality inclusive design which improves the character of an area. The design of the proposed building is functional and appropriate both in form and materials to this commercial part of the Quadrant development site.

Impacts on highway safety and residential amenity

7.21 In highway terms, the proposed development is unlikely to generate significant

levels of traffic and the adjacent distributor road will have the capacity to easily accommodate this form and size development without causing harm to highway safety. As indicated above, vehicular access will be off the side service road and not the distributor road.

7.22 The proposed showroom will cover 490sqm. and in order to accord with policy, a

total of 25 spaces would need to be provided. It is proposed to provide 13 car spaces as part of this development which is contrary to Policy 36. However, given that the site will be located next to a proposed large car park which would serve an intended food store, there is a strong likelihood that potential customers would visit both facilities during the same shopping trip. It may be argued that this may reduce, to some extent, the need to provide 25 spaces as part of this development.

Page 81

7.23 The County Highway Authority has raised no objections to this application. 7.24 In terms of residential amenity, there are existing residential properties which form

part of the Quadrant development to the north of the site about 50m away. The approved ‘master plan’ also shows intended housing development to the west of the site on the opposite side of the road. No application for the approval of reserved matters for this phase of the Quadrant development has yet been submitted. No objections have been received from the Environmental Health Manager and it is anticipated that this development would not substantially harm the amenity of existing and future residents in the area.

The Planning balance 7.25 There are issues which weigh both in favour and against this application and one

of the main issues therefore is whether the adverse impacts outweighs the benefits given the objectives of saved policies contained within the Local Plan, the relevant policies contained in the SELLP and the presumption in favour of sustainable development as contained within the NPPF (2018).

7.26 This development does not strictly comply with the approved ‘master plan’ which

forms part of the hybrid approval and Condition 28 attached to the outline permission. This condition requires that all reserved matters relating the Quadrant scheme shall not exceed the amounts stated in the approved master plan in terms of gross supermarket floor space or commercial leisure floor space and the development shall follow as far as practicable the indicative master plan drawing. The proposed building will be located on land identified on the ‘master plan’ as part of a car park serving the intended food store and this scheme may compromise the delivery of this part of the master plan. However this current application is not for the approval of reserved matters and so is not directly ‘tied’ by the conditions attached to the hybrid permission.

7.27 Furthermore it may be argued that this form of retail outlet would be much more

compatible within a town centre site, a retail park or industrial area than an out of centre site. On this basis the development does not accord with the provisions of SELLP Policy 27 which seeks to ensure new comparison goods are provided within the town centre. Also, the proposed car parking arrangement to serve this scheme and the implications this scheme may have on the future car park that would serve the food store having regard to the requirements of SELLP Policy 36 would also count against this application.

7.28 The site forms part of a larger area identified in the SELLP as a ‘housing

commitment’ which means that the site is expected to be developed for housing. Thus, given that the existing hybrid permission does not include the development of a kitchen/bathroom showroom on this site means that this application contravenes this element of the SELLP.

7.29 Alternatively this scheme will also provide some benefits especially to the wider

scheme that has been approved. Firstly the application will help to contribute to the delivery of the stadium and will help to assist in securing additional funding through ‘enabling development’ that will help to reduce the ‘funding gap’ associated with the delivery of the stadium.

Page 82

As indicated above the applicants say that viability considerations that have recently been assessed to support the bid to Homes England to secure marginal viability funding under the terms of the Housing Infrastructure Fund has demonstrated that this additional unit is essential in order to realise the delivery of the community stadium. Although no viability assessment has been submitted with this application, there is no evidence which suggests that this is not the case.

7.30 Furthermore, this relatively small scale retail development will have no more than

a marginal impact on existing shopping centres and will not undermine the vitality or viability of Boston town centre nor would this development substantially erode the delivery of the overall objectives of the commercial element of this mixed use development. This application does not contravene the ‘commercial’ related conditions attached to the hybrid approval as detailed in paragraph 3.6. It is considered that the proposed retail outlet will be compatible with this mixed use development and accords with the overall objectives of the ‘master plan’.

7.31 The site is located in a prominent location along the new distributor road and the

design of the proposed building follows to a large extent its function with large display windows. Given the changing characteristics of the area, it is not considered that the design of the building will be harmful to the amenity of the area nor will the proposed development affect highway safety or residential amenity.

7.32 It may therefore be argued that this application meets the three dimensions of

sustainable development. These factors count in favour of this application. 8.0 Conclusion 8.1 Clearly the pattern of the retail market has changed significantly over the past few

years at national, regional and local level and it may be the case that this application is the first of a number of similar applications that may be submitted in the future to reflect this change. The changes to the retail market include the growth in on line shopping and an increase in convenience retailing which has resulted in smaller scale developments being pursued.

8.2 The fundamental issue therefore raised by this application is whether the principle

of this form of class A1 retail development on this ‘unique’ development site is compatible with the area and whether this development will co-exist, help or impede the delivery of the stadium and associated mixed development granted in 2015.

8.3 Given that the relevant retail policies in the Boston Borough Local Plan are

unsaved means that the application should be judged on the basis of ‘other material considerations’ which includes the relevant saved policies in the Local Plan, the relevant polices in the SELLP which now attract significant weight and the presumption in favour of sustainable development as contained within the NPPF.

8.4 As Members are aware, there are three dimensions of sustainable development as contained within the NPPF (2018). These are social, environmental and economic. In social terms, it is considered that this development will help form part of the ‘enabling development’ to ensure the delivery of the stadium which also includes community facilities and in economic terms this development will help to reduce the funding gap to associated with the delivery of the stadium.

Page 83

In environmental terms, the design, scale and landscaping of the site will ensure that this development assimilates within the area and the overall design concept of The Quadrant development.

8.5 Bringing these matters together as part of the planning balance, it is considered

that the limited adverse impacts as identified above would not significantly or demonstrably outweigh the social, environmental and economical benefits that would be achieved through the delivery of the stadium and the associated mixed use development. It is considered that any approval of this application would not set a precedent for other similar retail schemes outside of the town centre to be approved given the unique nature of this development. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out below.

9.0 Recommendation: GRANT

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.


following approved plans:

Proposed block plan ref 2448-A3-07C (2a/3) Proposed plans, elevations and section ref 2448-A1-08C (3/3)


3. No development shall take place above ground level until full details of hard and

soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These works shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved details. The scheme shall include

a) boundary treatment b) hard surface materials c) planting schedules (species, sizes densities) d) existing trees to be retained/removed


4. All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details

within 6 months of the date of the first occupation of any building or completion of development whichever is the sooner. Any trees, plants, grassed areas which within a period of 5 years from the date of planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the first available planting season with others of similar size species or quality..

Page 84

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Section 197 of

the 1990 Act which requires Local Planning Authorities to ensure, where appropriate, adequate provision is made for the preservation or planting of trees, and to ensure that the approved scheme is implemented satisfactorily. The condition accords with Adopted Local Plan Policy G1

5. No development shall take place above ground level until details are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority that shows the provision and implementation of a flood warning evacuation plan. The flood warning and evacuation plan shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding and to accord with the objectives of Local

Plan polciy G1 and the National Planning Policy Framework (2018)

6. No development shall take place above ground level until details are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority that shows the provision of two cycle parking stands within the application site. The cycle stands as may be approved shall be installed before the retail unit is brought into use and retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory provison of cycle stands within the site and to

accord with the objectives of sustainable development as contained within the NPPF (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 Lisa Hughes Growth Manager

Page 85



Proposed erection of 1 no. two and a half storey dwelling, extended vehicular access and a new

vehicular access

Land to rear of 29 Woodville Road, Boston, PE21 8AP

Applicant: Mr S Penson,Habitat Residential Ltd.

Page 87

Agenda Item 5

Page 88



Reference No: B/18/0323 Expiry Date: 24-Oct-2018 Application Type: Full Planning Permission Proposal: Proposed erection of 1 no. two and a half storey dwelling, extended

vehicular access and a new vehicular access Site: Land to rear of 29 Woodville Road, Boston, PE21 8AP Applicant: Mr S Penson, Habitat Residential Ltd. Agent: Mr Clive Wickes, Clive Wicks Associates Ward: Staniland Parish: Boston Town Area Committee Case Officer: Trevor Thompson Third Party Reps: 3

Link to Application: B/18/0323 Recommendation: REFUSE

Page 89



1.1 This application has been presented to the Planning Committee because

objections have been received from neighbours and because this application is for a similar scheme that was refused by this Committee earlier this year.

2.0 Application Site and Proposal 2.1 The application site is located within the built up area of the town, on the northern

side of Cherry Walk and within a residential area. It consists of domestic garden areas which currently serve 27 and 29 Woodville Road. The site is also within flood zone 3a of the Environment Agency’s Flood Maps. The site has a 27m road frontage and has a varied depth of 11m on its western boundary and 14.4m on its eastern boundary. The site covers about 0.04ha. The applicant owns/controls 27 and 27 Woodville Road.

2.2 This application is a re-submission of a previous scheme which was for the

construction of two detached dwellings plus the construction of new vehicular accesses. This application was refused (see below). The current application is for one single dwellinghouse which will be two and a half storey in height with no ground floor accommodation given flood risk constraints. It is intended to provide an integral garage with external parking (one space) to the side of the building. The first floor of the dwelling will provide a lounge, kitchen/dining and bathroom and the second floor will provide two bedrooms.

3.0 Relevant History 3.1 As indicated above an application for the construction of two detached dwellings

on this site was refused by this Committee in May of this year (ref B/18/0082). The application was refused for the following reason: ‘The proposed development, having regard to the size and shape of the application site coupled with the siting of the proposed two dwellings close to the public highway, represents over-development and will be out of character with the overall pattern of development in the area. Furthermore, the proposed development will appear dominant, alien and visually intrusive and will cause substantial harm to the amenity of the area. The proposed development will therefore contravene the objectives of Local Plan policies G1, H2 and H3 and the NPPF (2012)’.

4.0 Relevant Policy

Boston Borough Adopted Local Plan 4.1 The development plan consists of the saved policies of the Boston Borough Local


Page 90

4.2 The land is within the built up area of the town as defined within the Boston Borough Local Plan but is not designated for any specific use.

4.3 The saved Policies within Boston Borough Local Plan of relevance to this application are as follows:

Policy G1 – Amenity

Policy G3 – Surface and Foul Water Disposal

Policy G6 – Vehicular and Pedestrian Access Policy H2 – Windfall housing development

Policy H3 – Quality of housing developments

4.4 As discussed at the last Committee meeting, those policies which have attracted no objections as contained within the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 (SELLP) now attribute significant weight. The Policies within the draft South East Lincolnshire Local Plan of relevance to this application are as follows: Policy 2: Development Management

This policy indicates that planning permission will be granted for proposals provided that sustainable development considerations are met in relation to, amongst other things, size, scale, layout, density, design, access and impact on the amenity, trees, character and appearance of the area and the relationship to existing development and land uses. Policy 3: Design of new development This policy encourages the use of high quality and inclusive design and layout which improves the character and quality of an area and resists designs which are inappropriate to the local area or which fails to maximise opportunities for improving the character of an area. Policy 36: Vehicle and Cycle Parking

This policy sets out minimum vehicle and parking spaces for certain types of development unless a high quality design can demonstrate that a lower standard of provision delivers the requirements set out in the policy. This matter is discussed below. It should be noted that the relevant policies in the SELLP attracted little weight in the determination of the previous application. National Planning Policy Framework (2018)

4.5 The NPPF (2018) replaces the NPPF (2012) version. At the heart of the new framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and should not be taken in isolation. As with the former NPPF, these overarching objectives are economic, social and environmental. The sustainability credentials of this development with regard to these three objectives are discussed in detail further below.

Page 91

4.6 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF indicates that plans and decisions should apply to a

presumption in favour of sustainable development. It adds that for decision making, this means:

c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or

ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

4.7 Paragraph 64 of the NPPF says that Local Planning Authorities should ‘support

the development of windfall sites through their policies and decisions – giving great weight to the benefits of using suitable sites within existing settlements for homes’

4.8 Under the heading ‘achieving well designed places, paragraph 127 of the NPPF

says, amongst other things that decisions should ensure that developments:

‘....will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit...’

4.9 This Council does not have a 5 year supply of housing and therefore policies relevant

to the supply of housing are out of date. The tilted balance in paragraph 11 of the

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is therefore engaged and on this basis there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which presumes in favour of the grant of permission unless harm significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the scheme.

4.10 It should be noted that the previous application was determined having regard to the

NPPF (2012).

Page 92

5.0 Representations 5.1 As a result of publicity 3 letters of objection or concern have been received from

the occupiers of the following properties: 1 Cherry Walk, Boston 33 Woodville Road, Boston 25 Woodville Road, Boston

5.2 The objections and comments can be summarised as follows: Impact on residential amenity including loss of privacy, overlooking, noise

and disruption during the building work, loss of light, impact on visual amenity and visual outlook from neighbour’s window.

Concerns that the design of the proposed two and a half storey dwelling will not fit in with rest of the street.

6.0 Consultations 6.1 County Highway Authority has no objections.

6.2 Environment Agency has no objections subject to one condition relating to flood

risk.

6.3 Black Sluice Internal Drainage Board has made comment about the disposal of surface water from the site.

7.0 Planning Issues and Discussions 7.1 The key planning issues in the determination of this application are:

Interpretation of planning policy

Impact on residential amenity

Impact on highways

Flood risk

Impact on the character of the area.

Interpretation of planning policy

7.2 Local Plan Policy H2 allows housing development within settlements provided that, inter alia, there is no loss of an open space or a frontage which contributes significantly to the area, the site is not too small to accommodate the development, the development and density are in character with neighbourhood and, that the development does not constitute tandem development. Local Plan policy H3 seeks to ensure high quality housing development whilst policy G1 in part echoes the objectives of these H2 and H3 and seeks to resist development that would cause substantial harm to the amenities of residents, nearby land users or the character of the area.

7.3 The development will not result in the loss of an open space or frontage which

contributes significantly to the area and so this development does not contravene the criteria set by Local Plan policy H2(1).

Page 93

7.4 Local Plan policy H2(2) which relates to the size of the site and Local Plan H2(3) which resists development where the resultant dwelling(s) and curtilages are not of a size and character which reflect the current density in the area are fundamental issues in the determination of this application. As indicated above the site covers about 400sqm and the assessment of the application in relation to Local Plan policies H2(2) and H2(3) are discussed further below.

7.5 Local Plan policy H2(4) resists tandem or backland development mainly to avoid

‘town cramming’ and to maintain residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Given the location of the site in relation to neighbouring properties, this development does not constitute tandem development.

7.6 Local Plan policy H3(1) resists development which does not provide a pleasant,

convenient and secure environment for residents. This applies to both existing and future residents. Local Plan policy G1 resists development that will ‘substantially’ harm the amenity of residents and there is some overlap between G1 and H3(1). The assessment of this application in relation to residential amenity is discussed below.

7.7 Local Plan policy H3(2) resists developments which are incompatible with the

existing character of the area in terms of layout, density, design and materials and Local Plan policy H3(3) resists developments which are close to an incompatible use. The site is within a residential area and there are no nearby uses which will affect the amenity of the future residents. This application does not contravene Local Plan policy H3(3).

7.8 Local Plan policy H3(4) resists development that would aggravate adverse traffic conditions. In this instance it is proposed to use and extend the existing access off Cherry Walk and to provide an integral garage with side parking. A new vehicular access is also to be installed off Cherry Walk to serve 29 Woodville Road. The assessment of this application with regard to highway safety and the objectives of policy H3(4) is discussed below.

Impact on residential amenity 7.9 The impact that the proposed building may have on the amenity of residents will

be a key consideration in the determination of this application not only on the residents of the properties adjacent and opposite the site but also the residents of the proposed dwelling.

7.10 The proposed dwelling will be about 8m in height. It will be set back about 4.7m

from the front boundary abutting the highway and a minimum distance of 1.6m from the rear boundary. It will also be 3m from the side boundary shared with 1 Cherry Walk and 14m from the site’s eastern boundary to be shared with 29 Woodville Road. The proposed dwelling includes windows on the first floor on the front elevation and dormer windows in the second floor. The proposed rear elevation includes two upper floor landing windows which will be fitted with obscure glazing. The two end gables do not contain any windows or door openings and are blank brick walls. The dwelling is positioned along the western side of the site which although does not allow a great deal of rear garden, this is balanced out by the extensive side garden which is now proposed to serve this single dwelling.

Page 94

7.11 The main differences between this scheme and the scheme which was refused previously are that one dwelling is now proposed instead of two dwellings and that the siting of the dwelling in relation to the front and rear boundaries has also changed. This also means that the garden area that will serve this one single dwelling is now much larger than the garden areas which were proposed last time. Previously it was intended to set the dwellings back a minimum of 1.5m from the front boundary and 4.5m from the rear boundary on plot 1. The design and height of the dwelling has not fundamentally changed from the previous scheme though the current scheme is now a mirror image to the previous house design. The distance of the dwelling from no 1 Cherry Walk has not changed and remains at around 9.5m.

7.12 Although this application represents a significant change compared to the

previous scheme, concerns have again been raised by neighbouring residents about the impact that this development may have upon residential amenity. These concerns are understandable given the siting and scale of the proposed dwelling in relation to neighbouring properties and shared boundaries. Although no windows are proposed on either gable end to avoid overlooking, it may also be argued that the presence of a two and a half storey dwelling on this site, where presently there is none will clearly have an impact on the level of amenities adjoining residents presently enjoy.

7.13 The semi detached properties opposite and to the west are about 7m high so the

height of the proposed dwelling at around 8m is reasonably in scale with neighbouring properties and surrounding development. Furthermore the proposed dwelling will be set back to around 4.7m from the front boundary so it is more in line with the front wall of 1 Cherry Walk and so therefore it will be much better and much less prominent than the previous scheme. However as a consequence, the dwelling will now be much closer to the rear boundary shared with the neighbouring resident.

7.14 Furthermore, as indicated above, the proposed dwelling will be sited about 3m

from the site’s western boundary and about 9m from the side elevation of 1 Cherry Walk. Given that it is now intended to erect one dwelling on the site instead of two as previously proposed means that there is a lot more room within the site to increase the distance between existing and proposed dwellings. The applicant has therefore been requested to relocate the proposed dwelling to a more central location, further away from 1 Cherry Walk and so the dwelling follows more closely the pattern of development in the area. However, the applicant states that: ‘Whilst we can move the structure to the east, that splits the garden area into two small garden areas instead of a reasonably useable area. Also, leaving the structure where we have proposed, it relates more closely to the existing dwellings in Cherry Walk rather than “filling a gap” in the street scene. We are 9m away from 1 Cherry Walk and create less overshadowing than that dwelling does to No. 3’s rear garden area’.

Impact on highway safety 7.15 In this instance it is proposed to use and extend the existing access off Cherry

Walk and to provide an integral garage with side parking. A new vehicular access is also to be installed off Cherry Walk to serve 29 Woodville Road. The integral garage will be set back about 4.7m from the road and it is not intended to provide a turning space within the site.

Page 95

7.16 Standards (or ‘recommendations’) have been used in the past which required that

there should be 6.0 metres of driveway between a garage door and the back edge of the adjacent highway to allow a driver to pull off the highway and leave enough space for the garage door to be opened. This is to prevent any obstruction within the highway when a driver is accessing the garage. Neither this scheme nor the previous scheme accords with this ‘guidance’. The previous application was not refused on highway grounds. It was considered at that time that the frequency of vehicle movements along Cherry Walk were not that high and therefore the impact on highway that may be generated by the garage doors being so close to the highway would not be severe and would only act as a mere inconvenience to other road users and pedestrians.

7.17 Since the previous application was determined, certain policies in the SELLP now

have significant weight. This includes Policy 36 which deals with vehicle and cycle parking. It says that within the curtilage of a plot, 2 car spaces are required for dwellings up to 3 bedrooms and that one cycle space is required for each dwelling. It adds that ‘a garage can count as a one space if it is 2.6m x 5.6m internal width with an additional 1m at the end to park cycles’. The integral garage does not comply with this requirement. However, there is ample space within the plot to provide cycle parking so it is not considered the application should be refused on this basis. The County Highway Authority has no objections.

Flood risk 7.18 The application site is within a high risk flood area and the application is

accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment. The Environment Agency has no objections to the application subject to a condition which requires the ground floor of the dwellings to be used solely for those ancillary uses specified on the submitted layout plan (i.e. garage, utility, store, hall, and w.c).

Impact on the character of the area

7.19 The application site lies within a residential area and the character of this area

may be described as diverse, with a range house types, ages and designs. However the site itself lies within a housing estate, built around the 1960s and one of the key characteristics of this estate is the relatively large plot sizes, deep rear gardens and a strong building line.

7.20 As indicated above Local Plan policy H3(2) resists development that is

incompatible with the existing character of the area in terms of design, layout , density and materials and Local Plan policy H2(2) and H2(3) resists developments where the site is too small to accommodate a satisfactory development and where the resultant dwelling(s) and curtilages are not of a size and character which reflect the current density in the area.

7.21 This revised application is much better than the previous scheme in relation to its

position to the highway, that it follows the ‘building line’ set by neighbouring properties and given that only one dwelling as opposed to two as previously proposed, it may now be argued that the development will therefore no longer appear cramped or over-developed. However concerns still exist with regard to certain other aspects of the development.

Page 96

7.22 Firstly the rear garden areas serving 27 and 29 Woodville Road will reduce

significantly as a result of this development when compared with the rear gardens of many of the other properties on this estate. In general, the depths of surrounding garden areas are generous whilst the resulting gardens areas serving 27 and 29 Woodville Road will decrease to between 10m -13m. Whilst garden areas of this size would normally be considered to be adequate, a great deal depends on context and the characteristics of the surrounding environment.

7.23 Furthermore, it is considered that the siting of the proposed 8m or so high

dwelling so close to the western boundary and in particular the northern boundary of the site would be totally unsatisfactory and would be incompatible with the overall layout, character and pattern of development in the area. This would contravene Local Plan policies G1, H2 and H3 and the objectives of the NPPF and policy 3 of the SELLP. Although a more central location of the proposed dwelling within this site would be a better arrangement, the dwelling would still be relatively close to the rear boundary shared with a neighbouring property, i.e. 25 Woodville Road. As a consequence the amenity of that occupier would still be harmed as a result of any such relocation.

8.0 Summary and Conclusion

8.1 The principle of additional residential development on this site is acceptable given

that it is located within the built up area of the town, within a sustainable location, close to existing facilities and amenities. The crux of this application therefore hinges on whether the development will cause substantial harm to residential amenity and the character of the surrounding area.

8.2 The NPPF indicates that housing applications should be considered in the context

of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and seeks the speedy approval of proposals that accord with the development plan and, where the plan is “absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date”, to grant permission unless the adverse impact would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits; or that policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

8.3 It is considered that the adverse impact of this development would significantly

and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and it is recommended that the application should be refused for the reason set out below.

9.0 Recommendation

9.1 It is recommended that Committee REFUSE this application for the reason set out

below. 1. The proposed dwelling, having regard to its position in relation to neighbouring

dwellings and respective boundaries coupled with its height and design, will be out of character with the overall pattern of development in the area and will appear dominant, awkward and visually intrusive to the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers and will substantially harm the character of the area.

Page 97

Consequently the proposed development will therefore contravene the objectives of Boston Borough Local Plan 1999 Policies G1, H2 and H3, the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan2011-2036. Refused drawing numbers: Location plan ref 17-2382-P-02 Rev A Proposed site plan ref 17-2382-P-03 rev A Proposed plans and elevations ref 17-2382-P-01 rev E

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. Lisa Hughes

Growth Manager

Page 98


Siting of a portakabin to provide office and kitchen area for a temporary 3 year period

Drayton Motors, The Drayton, Swineshead, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE20 3JN

Applicant: Wilson & Co (Kia) Ltd

Page 99

Agenda Item 6

Page 100



Reference No: B/18/0337 Expiry Date: 05-Oct-2018 Extension of Time: 19-Oct-2018 Application Type: Full Planning Permission Proposal: Siting of a portakabin to provide office and kitchen area for a

temporary 3 year period Site: Drayton Motors, The Drayton, Swineshead, Boston, Lincolnshire,

PE20 3JN Applicant: Wilson & Co (Kia) Ltd Agent: Mr Terry Sykes, Terry Sykes (Design & Build) Ward: Swineshead and

Holland Fen Parish: Swineshead Parish Council

Case Officer: Kirsty Harte Third Party Reps: 2 Link to application: B/18/0337 Recommendation: GRANT

Page 101

http://www.boston.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6208&ApplicationNumberB/18/0337


1.1 This application has been called in for Committee consideration by Councillor Brown.

2.0 Application Site and Proposal

2.1 The application site is located within the countryside outside the village of Swineshead and accommodates a car sales, repair and servicing business, with associated car display area. On the site are 3 main buildings, which are industrial/commercial in nature. Works to the rear of the site, which included a new structure for valeting purposes and amended parking area, have recently been completed (granted permission under ref 16/0267).

2.2 The proposal is for the siting of a portakabin to provide office and kitchen area for a temporary 3 year period. Currently the staffs use the exiting kitchen area within the main building. However, a change in business legislation requires more office space, therefore the existing kitchen will become office space and the proposed portakabin will become a kitchen area, and also provide office space for the managing director of the company.

3.0 Relevant History There is an extensive history on the site. The most relevant planning permissions

are as follows:

3.1 B/13/0427 – Demolition of existing house and creation of a car sales area to be used in association with the adjacent Drayton Motors – Granted 03/02/2014

3.2 B/16/0267 – Increase height of existing valeting building and convert to form large workshop area. Construct new detached steel framed car valeting building to rear of existing buildings. Granted 05/10/2016

4.0 Relevant Policy

Boston Borough Adopted Local Plan

4.1 The development plan consists of the saved policies of the Boston Borough Local Plan (adopted 1999). Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 The land is within the countryside outside the village of Swineshead.

4.3 The saved Policies within Boston Borough Local Plan of relevance to this application are as follows: Policy C01 – Development in the Countryside Policy ED6 – Small Developments Within or Next to Settlements Policy ED9 – Expansions of Existing Firms Policy G1 – General Amenity Policy G3 – Foul and Surface Water Disposal Policy G6 – Vehicular and Pedestrian Access

Page 102


4.4 As discussed at the last Committee meeting, those policies which have attracted

no objections as contained within the SELLP now attribute significant weight. The policies contained within the SELLP which now have significant weight which are relevant to the application are as follows:

4.5 Policy 2: Development Management

This policy indicates that planning permission will be granted for proposals provided that sustainable development considerations are met in relation to, amongst other things, size, scale, layout, density, design, access and impact on the amenity, trees, character and appearance of the area and the relationship to existing development and land uses.

4.6 Policy 36: Vehicle and Cycle Parking


National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

4.7 The NPPF (2018) replaces the NPPF (2012) version. The following paragraphs are relevant:

4.8 Paragraph 109 states development should be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

4.9 Paragraph 127 states planning decisions should ensure developments will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, are visually attractive and optimise the potential of the site.

4.10 Paragraph 170 requires development, amongst other things, to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment; including recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

5.0 Representations

5.1 As a result of publicity 2 representations have been received from the occupiers of the following properties:

Southfields, The Drayton, Boston Corner Cottage, The Drayton, Boston

5.2 The objections and comments can be summarised as follows: Boundary line disputes; part of the portakabin will be sited within the garden

of the neighbouring residential dwelling Drainage Impact upon the countryside Increase in traffic

Page 103

6.0 Consultations

6.1 Swineshead Parish Council raised no objections.

6.2 Internal Drainage Board did not respond. 7.0 Planning Issues and Discussions

7.1 The key planning issues in the determination of this application are:

Impact on residential amenity

Impact on the character of the area Impact on highways and parking

Impact on residential amenity and the character of the countryside

7.2 The application site has been occupied as a business by the current owners for several years and is an established business. The proposals set out in this application are intended to support the existing functions on the site as a “Kia” franchise holder, and are to bring the facilities up to the required standards, rather than to increase activity on the site. For these reasons the principle of this development is considered to be acceptable, provided all other considerations are overcome.

7.3 Saved Policy ED9 of the Boston Borough Adopted Plan relates to the extension or redevelopment of an existing industrial or commercial enterprise, provided that the proposal will not cause unacceptable environmental, amenity, traffic or parking problems, or aggravate existing problems. The proposal seeks to locate a portakabin for a temporary period of 3 years, it will provide office space and kitchen facilities for existing staff.

7.4 Policy G1 sets out that permission will only be granted if development will not substantially harm the amenities of nearby land users or residents, or the character of the area because of its nature, scale, density, layout, appearance or level of traffic generation.

7.5 The proposed portakabin will be situated to the western boundary of the site, along the fence with Pear Tree House (which is under the ownership of the applicants), overlooking open fields, and would be largely unseen from the public realm. The design is small scale in nature and would fit comfortably in to the wider development on the site. Impact on highways and parking

7.6 Policy ED6 relates to small developments within or next to settlements. It says planning permission will be granted for small scale industrial or commercial development on land not specifically allocated for these uses, provided that the proposal will not cause unacceptable harm to the level of traffic generated. It is not proposed to increase the level of employment and commercial use on the site. No existing car park spaces will be lost as the result of this proposal. The site contains customer car parking and the frontage of the sale sales area is edged by low level metal hooped fencing, which serves to discourage on road parking. Given that this proposal does not seek to increase activity, it is not considered that an objection to the current proposals based on traffic generation and highway safely issues could be sustained.

Page 104

7.7 Since this proposal was submitted to the Local Planning Authority the works granted permission under reference B/16/0267 have been completed. These works involve new customer parking to the rear of the building. Although the public highway isn’t marked with double yellow lines to prevent parking, new signs will be in situ to encourage customers to use the off road car parking facilities provided.

8.0 Summary and Conclusion 8.1 It is considered that that the siting of the portakabin for a temporary 3 year period

will not have a negative impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties or the surrounding countryside given its scale and location. It will be well screened from the public realm and also from the open countryside. Additionally, it will not cause any negative impact to highway safety given that it will not create any additional traffic.

8.2 Although concerns have been raised with regards to drainage no objections have been received from the Internal Drainage Board.

8.3 With regards to concerns raised from residents in relation to the boundary lines it is evident from the site plan submitted that the portakabin will be situated on land in ownership of the applicants and within the commercial area, and therefore a change of use application is not required.

9.0 Recommendation

9.1 It is recommended that Committee GRANT Planning Permission subject to the

following condition(s) and reasons:-

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three


Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.


following approved plans –

Plan 1/3 – Site Plan Plan 2/3 – Block Plan (5653 Layout) Plan 3/3 – Proposed Site Layout Plan (TS.DM.2018.01.PC) Application Form

Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved details, in the interest of residential amenity and to comply with saved Policy G1 of the Adopted Plan.

Page 105

3. This planning permission is granted for a limited period only expiring 3 years from

the date of this permission. The portakabin hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its original condition.

Reason: The development hereby approved is not considered suitable as a permanent development to safeguard amenity and to comply with policies set out in the Boston Borough Local Plan 1999 in accordance with Policy G1.

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. Lisa Hughes Growth Manager

Page 106


Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of terrace block of 6 no. three storey houses with

new access and associated site works

118 Church Road, Boston, PE21 0LG

Applicant: Mrs B Orrey

Page 107

Agenda Item 7

Page 108



Reference No: B/18/0263 Expiry Date: 23-Aug-2018 Extension of Time: 19-Oct-2018 Application Type: Full Planning Permission Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of terrace block of 6 no.

three storey houses with new access and associated site works Site: 118 Church Road, Boston, PE21 0LG Applicant: Mrs B Orrey Agent: Mr Clive Wicks, Clive Wicks Associates Ward: Skirbeck Parish: Boston Town Area Committee Case Officer: Stuart Thomsett Third Party Reps: 10 Link to Planning Application: B/18/0263

Recommendation: GRANT

Page 109


1.0 Reasons for report 1.1 This application has been presented to the Planning Committee given the number

of objections that have been received from neighbouring residents. It is therefore considered appropriate that the Committee determine the application.

2.0 Application site and proposal 2.1 The site is located within the built up area of Boston and is a triangular parcel of

land forming the southern part of the junction of Windsor Crescent and Church Road. It consists of a detached house, i.e. no 118 Church Road and detached garage within a large residential curtilage. The site lies within a residential area and there are residential properties to either side, to the rear and opposite the site. Lea Park residential mobile home site (currently 33 homes) is located on the opposite side of Church Road.

2.2 The application site area is 0.08 hectares (800 sqm) with a road frontage of 46

metres and a depth ranging from 28.5 metres to 5 metres nearer the junction with Windsor Crescent.

2.3 It is proposed to construct a three storey building of contemporary design

comprising six units (4 no. 3 bed terraced units and 2 no. 2 bed terraced units). The proposed terrace will be approximately 30m wide by 7.5m deep with a height of 8.5m. It is proposed to raise the ground floor 500mm above ground level with normal flood resilient construction and 600mm high flood barriers to accommodate flood risk.

3.0 Relevant history

The site has an extensive and varied history: - 3.1 B05/0512/97 – Plot of land between 116 & 118 Church Road - Outline application

for the construction of one dwelling – withdrawn following discussions with LPA. 3.2 B05/0128/98 – Plot of land between 116 & 118 Church Road - Outline application

for the construction of one dwelling – approved. 3.3 B05/0117/9 – 118 Church Road - Full application for the construction of a

replacement garage – approved. 3.4 B/02/0117 - Plot of land between 116 & 118 Church Road - Outline application for

the construction of one dwelling and new vehicular access – approved subject to a condition which limited the house to two storeys to retain the character of the locality.

3.5 B/02/0369 – Plot of land between 116 & 118 Church Road - Full application for

the construction of one dwelling - approved. As this was a Full application for a two storey, house of standard design, no restrictive conditions were necessary.

Page 110

3.6 B/05/0392 – 118 Church Road – Retrospective application for change of use of

workshop to offices (recruitment agency) – approved subject to conditions restricting operating hours and making the permission applicable to a named company (recruitment agency) only. The garage / workshop had to revert to its original domestic use in association with host property once the commercial use ceased.

3.7 B/05/0393 – 118 Church Road – Advertisement Consent granted for a flat panel

sign advertising the business (recruitment agency). An attached condition required the sign to be removed once the use ceased.

3.8 B/05/0828 – 118 Church Road – Retrospective application for the change of use

from residential to house of multiple occupation (5 units) plus single storey side extension to form bathroom and two storey side extension to form four self contained flats - withdrawn following discussions with the LPA.

3.9 B/06/0172 – 118 Church Road - Planning permission for the change of use from

residential dwelling to house of multiple occupancy (5 units) plus single storey extension to south elevation to form bathroom, two storey side extension to the north elevation for multiple occupancy use (4 units) plus associated parking and new access. Originally, 6 no. additional units were proposed but following discussions with the LPA, this was reduced to 4 no. Therefore, this development provided 9 no. separate dwelling units served by 8 no. car parking space and was approved by Planning Committee on 30

th May 2006.

3.10 B/06/0433 – 118 Church Road - Application to remove condition no. 1 (temporary

time limit) attached to planning permission B/05/0392 for the Change of Use of workshop to offices., i.e. making the Class A2 (recruitment agency) use permanent. Approved subject to conditions restricting operating hours and making the permission applicable to a named company only. This was the most recent planning application which was submitted on this site.

4.0 Relevant policy background

4.1 The development plan consists of the saved policies of the Boston Borough Local


4.2 The site is within the built up area of the town as defined within the Boston

Borough Local Plan but is not designated for any specific use. The saved Local Plan Policies of relevance to this application are as follows:

Policy G1 – Amenity Policy G3 – Surface and Foul Water Disposal Policy G6 – Vehicular and Pedestrian Access

Page 111

Housing policies

Policy H2 – Windfall housing development Policy H3 – Quality of housing developments

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2018) 4.3 The NPPF (2018) replaces the NPPF (2012) version. At the heart of the new

framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and should not be taken in isolation. As with the former NPPF, these overarching objectives are economic, social and environmental. The sustainability credentials of this development with regard to these three objectives are discussed in detail further below.

4.4 Paragraph 9 of the Framework indicates that:

‘These objectives should be delivered through the preparation and implementation of plans and the application of the policies in this Framework; they are not criteria against which every decision can or should be judged. Planning policies and decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions, but in doing so should take local circumstances into account, to reflect the character, needs and opportunities of each area’.

4.5 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF indicates that plans and decisions should apply to a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It adds that for decision making, this means:

c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. The Council does not have a 5 year supply of housing and therefore policies relevant to the supply of housing are out of date. The tilted balance in paragraph 11 of the

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is therefore engaged and on this basis there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which presumes in favour of the grant of permission unless harm significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the scheme.

Page 112

4.6 Section 9 of the NPPF relates to transport issues. Paragraph 103 states:

‘The planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of these objectives. Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions, and improve air quality and public health. However, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making.’ Paragraph 109 states: ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.’

Paragraph 110 states: Within this context, applications for development should:

a) give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; and second – so far as possible – to facilitating access to high quality public transport, with layouts that maximise the catchment area for bus or other public transport services, and appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use’ Paragraph 122 states: ‘Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account: a) the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it; b) local market conditions and viability; c) the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use; d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change; and e) the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places.’

Page 113

Paragraph 127 states:

Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users46; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience. South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 (SELLP)

4.7 The site is within the settlement boundary as identified on Inset Map 1 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 and within countryside. Boston is identified as a ‘Sub Regional Centre’ in the SELLP.

4.8 Paragraph 48 of the NPPF states:

Local planning authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);

b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and

c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)

Page 114

4.9 It is anticipated that the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan will likely be adopted

before the end of this year. Therefore the policies contained within this document are attracting increasing weight. Objections have not been received in relation to the settlement boundaries and therefore weight can be attributed to Policy 1 (Spatial Strategy) as set out within the Main Modifications.

4.10 Thus, in terms of other relevant policies contained within the SELLP which must

be given weight in the determination of this application are Policy 2 Development Management, Policy 3 Design of New Development, Policy 4 Approach to Flood Risk and Policy 36 Vehicle and Cycle Parking. Below are the relevant excerpts of those policies which are relevant in the determination of this application:

4.11 Policy 2 Development Management:

Proposals requiring planning permission for development will be permitted provided that sustainable development considerations are met, specifically in relation to: 1. size, scale, layout, density and impact on the amenity, trees, character and appearance of the area and the relationship to existing development and land uses; 2. quality of design and orientation; 3. maximising the use of sustainable materials and resources; 4. access and vehicle generation levels; 5. the capacity of existing community services and infrastructure; 6. impact upon neighbouring land uses by reason of noise, odour, disturbance or visual intrusion; 7. sustainable drainage and flood risk; and 8. impact or enhancement for areas of natural habitats and historical buildings and heritage assets.

4.12 Policy 3 Design of New Development states:

All development will create distinctive places through the use of high quality and inclusive design and layout and, where appropriate, make innovative use of local traditional styles and materials. Design which is inappropriate to the local area, or which fails to maximise opportunities for improving the character and quality of an area, will not be acceptable. Development proposals will demonstrate how the following issues, where they are relevant to the proposal and are viable will be secured: 1. creating a sense of place by complementing and enhancing designated and non designated heritage assets; historic street patterns; respecting the density, scale, visual closure, landmarks, views, massing of neighbouring buildings and the surrounding area; 2. distinguishing between private and public space; 3. the landscape character of the location; 4. accessibility by a choice of travel modes including the provision of public transport, public rights of way and cycle ways; 5. the provision of facilities for the storage of refuse/recycling bins, storage and/or parking of bicycles and layout of car parking; 6. the lighting of public places; 7. ensuring public spaces are accessible to all;

Page 115

8. crime prevention and community safety; 9. the orientation of buildings on the site to enable the best use of decentralised and renewable low-carbon energy technologies for the lifetime of the development; 11. residential amenity; 12. the mitigation of flood risk through flood-resistant and flood-resilient design and sustainable drainage systems (SuDS); 13. the use of locally sourced building materials, minimising the use of water and minimising land take, to protect best and most versatile soils; 14. the incorporation of existing hedgerows and trees and the provision of appropriate new landscaping and its use to enhance biodiversity, and green infrastructure, flood risk mitigation and urban cooling;

4.13 Policy 4 Approach to Flood Risk states:

Development proposed within an area at risk of flooding (Flood Zones 2 and 3 of the Environment Agency’s flood map or at risk during a breach or overtopping scenario as shown on the flood hazard and depths maps in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment) will be permitted, where: 1. It can be demonstrated that there are no other sites available at a lower risk of flooding (i.e. that the sequential test is passed). The sequential test will be based on a Borough or District wide search area of alternative sites within the defined settlement boundaries, unless local circumstances relating to the catchment area for the development justify a reduced search area, i.e. there is a specific need for the development in that location. The sequential test is not required for sites allocated in the Local Plan, minor development1 or change of use (except for a change of use to a caravan, camping or chalet site, or to a mobile home or park home site). 2. It can be demonstrated that essential infrastructure in FZ3a & FZ3b, highly vulnerable development in FZ2 and more vulnerable development in FZ3 provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk. 3. The application is supported with a site-specific flood risk assessment, covering risk from all sources of flooding including the impacts of climate change and which: a. demonstrate that the vulnerability of the proposed use is compatible with the flood zone; b. identify the relevant predicted flood risk (breach/overtopping) level, and mitigation measures that demonstrate how the development will be made safe and that occupants will be protected from flooding from any source; c. propose appropriate flood resistance and resilience measures (following the guidance outlined in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment), maximising the use of passive resistance measures (measures that do not require human intervention to be deployed), to ensure the development maintains an appropriate level of safety for its lifetime; d. include appropriate flood warning and evacuation procedures where necessary (referring to the County’s evacuation routes plan), which have been undertaken in consultation with the authority’s emergency planning staff;

Page 116

e. incorporates the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) (unless it is demonstrated that this is not technically feasible) and confirms how these will be maintained/managed for the lifetime of development (surface water connections to the public sewerage network will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where it is demonstrated that there are no feasible alternatives); f. demonstrates that the proposal will not increase risk elsewhere and that opportunities through layout, form of development and green infrastructure has been considered as a way of providing flood betterment and reducing flood risk overall. g. demonstrates that adequate foul water treatment and disposal already exists or can be provided in time to serve the development.

4.14 Policy 36 Vehicle and Cycle Parking states:

All new development, including change of use, should provide vehicle and cycle parking, in accordance with the minimum Parking Standards adopted by the Local Planning Authorities (in Appendix 6), unless a high quality-design can demonstrate that a lower standard of provision delivers the requirements set out in 1-4 below. Parking for residents, employees and visitors should be integral to the design and form of all new development, and should ensure that: 1. parking spaces are fit for their intended use in terms of size and design; 2. for major residential development: a) a balanced provision of allocated and communal parking is provided, overlooked and accessible to the development it serves; b) off-curtilage parking is designed to maximise levels of security and safety for vehicles, drivers and pedestrians; and c) a secure, covered, convenient space to store at least two bicycles is provided within each residential plot; in the case of flatted developments this may be provided as a communal facility within the curtilage of the building containing the flats;

3. for major non-residential development: a) secure, covered, convenient storage for bicycles for employees should be provided close to an entrance to the building. Changing and shower facilities should be provided where possible; b) secure, covered bicycle storage for visitors are located close to the main entrance to the building; c) where more than 50 parking spaces are provided, at least one double electric vehicle charge point will be required (2 spaces). For each additional 50 parking spaces, one double charging point should be provided up to a maximum of three (6 spaces); and

4. parking is well-integrated within the townscape or landscape, through an appropriate use of materials and landscaping;

Innovative solutions to vehicle-parking provision including shared spaces (where the location and patterns of use permit), and the incorporation of measures such as car clubs, will be supported.

Page 117

An adequate supply of safe, secure and convenient public parking for vehicles will be delivered within and adjacent to the town centres, in partnership with the Local Highway Authority.

To demonstrate compliance with this policy, a Transport Assessment and associated Travel Plan should be submitted with proposals. The form will be dependent upon the scale and nature of the development and should be agreed through early discussion with the Local Highway Authority. Negotiation on parking requirements should be in accordance with the Parking Standards SPD.

4.15 Annex 6 stipulates parking standards for residential development (Houses and

Flats): Cars Within the curtilage:

2 spaces for dwellings with up to 3 bedrooms 3 spaces for dwellings with 4 or more bedrooms A garage can count as one space if it is 2.6m x 5.6m internal width, with an additional 1m at the end to park cycles. Where it can be justified by the character and location of the site the standards may be relaxed for one bedroom dwellings, including flats to one garage or parking space per unit and 1 additional space per 3 units for visitors.

Cycles

1 space within each residential plot or 1 space per unit within a flatted development. Where it can be justified by the character and location of the site the standards may be relaxed.

5.0 Representations

5.1 At the time of writing this report 10 letters of representation/objection have been

received from the occupiers of the following properties:

4 and 6 Windsor Crescent 120 Church Road 24 Threadneedle Street In addition to letters from Bourne, Leicestershire, Buckinghamshire, Shropshire, Devon.

Page 118

5.2 The letters raise concerns and objections on the following grounds:

The proposed building will certainly NOT, even with the height of the property slightly lowered, provide a welcome lift to the architectural quality of the area

The development will adopt the appearance of a flat roof warehouse at odds with the two storey houses in the area with gable roofs

As the buildings are so close to the garden boundaries of the homes behind, privacy, noise and reduction of sunlight will be a major impact on residents bordering the property

6 homes, of 2 and 3 bedrooms, will mean much more cars than the 6 spaces allowed for. It is naive to think that all properties will be sold to people working locally. This is NOT a town centre location!

This corner of Church Road is dangerous as cars drive at speed using the road as a short cut to avoid queues on the John Adams Way. More on street parking will cause more congestion and difficulties for the bus service and more importantly, emergency vehicles.

Contrary to Policies G6, H2 and H3 Over-intensification, cramming, With only 1 parking spot per household, there will be more cars parked on

the road, again leading to more possible accidents as it is on a slight bend. I have seen these modern buildings locally amongst traditional houses and

they are certainly not an enhancement. I am not against new buildings and advancement but this needs to be

sympathetic to the surroundings. The height of the building will overshadow the properties which back onto it,

and the top floor windows will add to the feeling of being overlooked. The design is not in keeping with the area, which is not a ‘town centre

location’ as stated, but has more of a suburban feel, with mainly three bedroom/two storey semi-detached or terraced houses, and a number of bungalows.

The plans for the site, including the plans of the houses themselves, look cramped. The plans allow for only one car parking space per unit, whereas a professional couple or young family often have two cars. Also visitor parking is not allowed for. The outside space is also very limited, and as the area would appeal to young families, this should be taken into account.

This development is definitely not ‘in character with the neighbourhood’ which is occupied mainly by families and older people, as I observe on my regular visits, and although it is within walking distance of the town it does not have an urban atmosphere. I would suggest a pair of three bedroom family houses, or a terrace of

four two bedroom ‘starter homes’, both two storeys and in a style in keeping with the area would be a more suitable option.

The industrial appearance of the proposed development. Two bin stores for a minimum of six bins (not including garden waste bins)

adjacent to neighbouring properties with respect to offensive odours and attraction of flies and vermin.

Six additional bins on pavements on collection days. Additional home deliveries of groceries, online purchases and takeaways.

Page 119

The application quoted the length of neighbouring gardens; this seems to be an admission that the building footprint is way out of proportion to the size of the plot. Privacy would also be in short supply to residents of the development with tiny gardens overlooked by neighbour’s terraces and upper windows.

Church Road is clearly not in “the central part or main business and commercial area of the town associated with shopping and retail”. It is clearly residential. The developers have either completely misunderstood or misrepresented the character of the area; it could be argued therefore that the proposed development is completely out character.

The development would increase traffic in the locality. Although provision is only made for six cars on site many young professional couples and small families own two cars especially if both partners work and/or drive their children to school before continuing on to work. Church Road is already a busy cut through via the docks road of which few who use it adhere to the 30mph speed limit. Additional vehicles parked on the western side of the road will constrict and obstruct traffic flows considerably.

There is inadequate parking on site for four/three bedroom properties and two/two bedroom properties. One parking spot per residence might be adequate for one bed single occupancy flats but not for three and two bed family homes plus visitors.

No consideration has been given to delivery van parking on site e.g. supermarket food deliveries. It is likely that double parking on the road could result. This could ignite parking disputes and ill feeling between longstanding and new residents and result in irresponsible, thoughtless and dangerous parking of vehicles.

A high density elevated three storey flat roofed, industrial in appearance, ‘Georgian’ style block using dark colours including black/anthracite on the third floor will dominate the locality and appear completely out of place.

The majority of surrounding properties are single or two storey houses with pitched roofs built during the 1930s to 1950s.

Surrounding properties are also blessed with good sized front and rear gardens while the proposed development would not be.

Overall the proposal is quite different and would be more at home within the actual town centre.

Six families on a site previously occupied by one living in a tall three storey structure built so close to and overlooking adjacent property boundaries will readily project noise to surrounding properties. If bought by ‘young professionals’ it is possible that some of this noise might be at unsociable hours of the night?

6.0 Relevant consultations 6.1 County Highways Authority submitted the following consultation response: -

‘Having taken the opportunity to review the proposed parking spaces, as shown on Drawing Number: 17-2384-P01E, dated May 2018, the applicant has made consideration of providing 9 spaces, some of which are for electric charging points and cycle storage for this development. However, this still does not meet the Highway Authority's recommendations for two spaces for dwellings with three bedrooms or more and additionally, 2 of the spaces are below standard dimensions.

Page 120

Given the fact that there is a short fall in parking spaces and sub-standard dimensions, the applicant has not addressed this Authority's concerns where vehicles may overhang the adoptable highway and create on-street parking, which would be an inconvenience and compromise the safety for all users of the Highway.

That said, the Highway Authority nor the Planning Authority have parking standards and the residual cumulative impact would not be that severe for this Authority to resist or refuse this application under Paragraph 105 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).’ This is discussed in the main section of this report.

6.2 Environment Agency has no objections subject to conditions. 6.3 Witham Fourth District Internal Drainage Board only wishes to be informed by the

applicant in the event that either surface water or foul water disposal arrangements alter from the information stated n the application form.

6.4 BBC Housing Manager submitted the following consultation response: -

As the application is for 6 dwellings it does not meet the affordable housing contribution threshold. However, one of my housing standards officers has commented that as the stairs at ground floor level exit into an open plan living/kitchen space, which are both high risk rooms in relation to fire, the preference would be to see a 30 minute protected route from stairs to the front door.

Therefore, there is no requirement to provide affordable housing. The issue

regarding fire risk will be dealt with under Building Regulations. 6.5 BBC’s Environmental Health Manager wished to raise no objections. 7.0 Planning issues and discussion 7.1 The key issues in the determination of this application are:

Interpretation of planning policy Impact on residential amenity Impact on highways and parking Flood risk Design and impact on the character of the area.

Interpretation of planning policy 7.2 The site is located within the built up area of the town and within a sustainable

location, close to existing facilities and services. Boston’s Market Place is a short walk / very short bicycle ride away. Therefore the principle of housing development on this site is acceptable subject to the objectives of Local Plan policies and the NPPF identified above being met.

Page 121

7.3 Local Plan Policy H2 allows housing development within settlements provided

that, inter alia, there is no loss of an open space or a frontage which contributes significantly to the area, the site is not too small to accommodate the development, the development and density are in character with neighbourhood and, that the development does not constitute tandem development. Local Plan Policy H3 seeks to ensure high quality housing development whilst Policy G1 in part echoes the objectives of these. Policy H2 and H3 and seeks to resist development that would cause substantial harm to the amenities of residents, nearby land users or the character of the area.

7.4 The development will not result in the loss of an open space or frontage which

contributes significantly to the area and so this development does not contravene the criteria set by Local Plan Policy H2 (1).

7.5 Local Plan Policy H2 (2) which relates to the size of the site and Local Plan Policy

H2 (3) which resists development where the resultant dwelling(s) and curtilages are not of a size and character which reflect the current density in the area are fundamental issues in the determination of this application. The proposed plot covers about 800 sqm and the assessment of the application in relation to Local Plan Policies H2 (2) and H2 (3) are discussed further below.

7.6 Local Plan Policy H2(4) resists tandem or backland development mainly to avoid

‘town cramming’ and to maintain residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Given the location of the site in relation to neighbouring properties, this development does not constitute tandem development.

7.7 Local Plan Policy H3 (1) resists development which does not provide a pleasant,

convenient and secure environment for residents. This applies to both existing and future residents. Local Plan Policy G1 resists development that will ‘substantially’ harm the amenity of residents and there is some overlap between Policies G1 and H3(1). The assessment of this application in relation to residential amenity is discussed below.

7.8 Local Plan Policy H3(2) resists developments which are incompatible with the

existing character of the area in terms of layout, density, design and materials and Local Plan Policy H3(3) resists developments which are close to an incompatible use. The site is within a residential area and there are no nearby uses which will affect the amenity of the future residents. This application does not contravene Local Plan Policy H3 (3). Design of the development is discussed below.

Local Plan Policy H3(4) resists development that would aggravate adverse traffic

conditions. It is proposed to provide parking within the site This matter is discussed below.

Impact on residential amenity 7.9 As indicated above, the site lies within a residential area and there are residential

properties either side, to the rear and opposite of the site including Lea Park (33 homes). The amenity of the occupiers of these dwellings may, to some extent, be affected by this development.

Page 122

7.10 The proposed building is of contemporary design and incorporates two low level steps leading to a modern entrance door. There are ground, first and second floor windows proposed in the front elevation facing the road. It is not intended to provide any windows on the side elevations. The rear elevation includes six sets of French doors and kitchen windows at ground floor level. There are 18 no. windows contained in the rear elevation at first and second floor, however, as they are intended to mainly serve bathrooms, the majority will be opaque. There are two high level windows serving a store room. There are four windows which will serve bedrooms at first floor, however, given the 18m separation distances between the rear elevations of the properties on Windsor Crescent (No. 2 - 12) and the proposed bedroom windows, the degree of any overlooking is not considered to likely to cause substantial harm.

7.11 The ground floor has been raised 500m above ground level to accommodate flood

risk and it is intended to access the proposed building via external steps on the front elevation.

7.12 The proposed terrace will comprise 4 no. 3 bed terrace houses and 2 no. 2 bed

houses and will be approximately 30m wide by 7.5m deep with a height of 8.5m. It will be sited between 3.5m and 6m from the 1.8m high fence along the north-western rear boundary (Windsor Crescent) of the intended plot and between 3.5m and 13m from the footpath on Church Road (front). The occupiers of the properties No. 2 – 12 Windsor Crescent may experience some loss of sunlight/daylight entering into these ground floor windows as a result of this development, and particularly so in the morning.

7.13 The Council’s development plan policies do not provide strict criteria against

which to assess applications in terms of effects upon neighbours in terms of overshadowing or effects upon sunlight or daylight. However as Members are aware, some local authorities have detailed supplementary planning guidance on how to judge such impacts and terms such as the ’45 degree rule’ and the ’25 degree rule’ are often used.

7.14 In order to ascertain whether the windows on the south-eastern elevation of the

existing adjacent properties (No. 2 - 12 Windsor Crescent) would be affected by this development, the applicant has submitted a plan showing two lines which represent the 25 and 45 degree rules drawn from the first floor windows of the terrace facing the existing dwellings.

7.15 Using these ‘rules’ as a benchmark, it would appear from the plans that the

development may result in some loss of daylight to the occupants of No. 2 – 12 Windsor Crescent, however I do not consider this harm to be substantial to warrant refusal of the application.

7.16 Due to the separation distances between the properties, the submitted plan

demonstrates that the proposed terrace will not result in any significant harm to the amenities of nearby residential properties in terms of overlooking, overbearing and overshadowing. Furthermore, although the proposed three storey building would adopt a very different appearance (to be discussed below) it will assimilate within the existing built environment in terms of height when compared to the existing predominantly two storey dwellings.

Page 123

7.17 The proposed building will be set back about between 3.5m and 13m from the

footpath on Church Road. It will be about 18m from the site’s northern boundary which is the large curtilage of No. 120 Church Road and 4m from 116 Church Road. This boundary is marked by a 1.8m close boarded timber fence.

7.18 Although the proposed dwelling includes windows contained in the front elevation,

it is considered that the amenity of the occupiers of 121a-d (semi-detached bungalows) and 119 Church Road (host dwelling to Lea Park) will not be substantially harmed by this development. This is because the proposed terrace will be sited in front of those properties and as a consequence any overlooking from these windows would be of the front gardens and will not affect private amenity areas.

Impact on highways and parking 7.19 The applicant intends to provide all of the parking provision that will serve the six

houses to be within the front and side garden area, within a newly landscaped frontage between the terrace and the highway with vehicular access solely from Church Road. The proposed front and side garden areas will accommodate 9 car spaces, i.e. one space per dwelling plus three visitor spaces. Cycle storage is provided and each house will be fitted with an individual electric vehicle charging point.

7.20 The site is within a sustainable location and within easy walking or cycling

distance from facilities within the town and it may be therefore be argued that only limited parking spaces would be necessary in this location to serve six proposed dwellings.

7.21 As members are aware, Local Plan Policy G6 resists development where the

proposed means of pedestrian and vehicular access are unsatisfactory and paragraph 109 of the NPPF indicates that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’.

7.22 It should be noted at the time that County Highways provided its response (Para

6.1 of this report) prior to 28th August 2018, this Council nor the County Highways

Authority had any minimum car parking space policy. Beyond this date, and in accordance with the NPPF 2018 paragraph 48, weight is now being attributed to a number of policies within the SELLP that have either not received representation or are unlikely to require further consideration from the Inspector.

7.23 Thus, significant weight can now be given to the emerging SELLP, and in relation

to parking standards, Annex 6 which indicates that two parking spaces should be provided to serve properties up to three bedrooms. Therefore, upon adoption of the SELLP, in order to comply with Policy 36 Vehicle & Cycle Parking, the proposed development would need to provide 12 no. car parking spaces to serve the six houses unless material considerations (such as its very sustainable location) indicated otherwise.

Page 124

7.24 However, as the current development plan comprises the adopted Local Plan (1999) and guidance contained within paras 109-110 of the NPPF, in the planning balance, weight must also be given to the fact that the Highway Authority nor the Planning Authority have existing Adopted parking standards. Furthermore, this site is within a highly sustainable location and the residual cumulative impact would not be that severe for this Authority to resist or refuse this application under Paragraph 105 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Comments were received from the County Highways Authority regarding the potential for vehicles to overhang the highways. However, if medium-sized cars are parked within the allocated spaces (2.4m x 1.2m), there is no reason to believe this would occur.

7.25 In the light of these factors, I do not believe that there would be a strong case for restricting the grant of consent for this development on the grounds of inadequate car parking provision or impact on highway safety though the resultant impact on the character of the area and the potential of a car dominated environment to the front of 118 Church Road is a material consideration.

Flood risk

7.26 The site is within a high flood risk area (Zone 3a) of the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Maps. The Flood Risk Assessment as originally submitted included a floor raise of 1m (to 2.8m ODN) and brackets installed at entrance doors to allow 600mm flood angels to be erected during flood events - the Environment Agency (EA) wished to raise no objections. However, the original scheme included five raised steps to the front entrance door which can be appropriate design in areas of Georgian and Victorian architecture (e.g. South End, South Terrace and Spilsby Road) but would be incongruous in this location. In addition, given safe areas of refuge at first and second floor, in the event of a flood, residents would be safe. The officer indicated support to a proposed reduction in floor raise by 500m which resulted in the removal of three steps and a reduction in height of the proposed terrace building. Following discussions between the Council and EA, in the event that a development does not accord with EA advice contained within the standing advice, which the proposed development does not, the EA would object to such a scheme. Therefore, it should be noted that in the event that the application is approved, it would be contrary to the EA’s advice.

Design and impact on the character of the area

7.27 The existing house and garage to be demolished are within a residential area which was built predominantly post-WWII with later infill development and consists of houses and bungalows. The character of the surrounding area may be defined as ‘mixed’ given the diversity of house styles, designs and age of properties in the wider locality along Church Road in addition to Windsor Crescent which was constructed by the Housing Authority, again during the post-WWII period.

7.28 The design of the proposed terrace may be described as ‘contemporary’ in

relation to the types and forms of dwellings in the surrounding locality and this modern design has attracted objections and concerns from some neighbouring residents. The proposed external materials include red facing brick, graphite grey zinc cladding to form the roof (second floor) and anthracite black UPVC windows and doors which will result in a design of a building that is both bold and unique to the area.

Page 125

The design has been dictated to some extent by the constraints of the site

including flood risk and the pattern of development in the area. The height of the proposed terrace will be 8.5m which is comparable to the adjacent traditional two storey dwellings with pitched roofs.

7.29 Design is a subjective matter and to some people this design approach may be

seen as contrived and totally out of character with the area whilst others may see this scheme as highly imaginative and of good quality which will result in a positive impact upon the environment.

7.30 The NPPF indicates that ‘Good design is a key aspect of sustainable

development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people’ . It is considered that whilst the design of this scheme in isolation is of good quality, the key issue here is context and whether this innovative design will assimilate within the pattern and character of the surrounding built environment.

7.31 The NPPF indicates that ‘developments are visually attractive as a result of good

architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change.’

7.32 In this instance, I consider that the design of the proposed terrace would not

‘substantially’ harm the amenity or character of the area to warrant refusal of the application. Although the concerns expressed by some neighbours regarding the design is understandable, it is the officer’s opinion that the contemporary design represents a natural progression from the designs of dwellings during the post war years through to the 1970s and to the more modern housing schemes recently built along other parts of Church Road and surrounding areas.

7.33 With regard to the size of the proposed terrace (Local Plan policy H2 (ii) refers), it

is considered that a plot measuring around 0.08ha in this location is limited but of sufficient size to accommodate residential development in this locality given the pattern of development in the area. The resulting development will not appear cramped or over-developed. Although the Local Plan does not include a policy which sets minimum garden areas, the proposed rear gardens with depths of between 2 - 4m and an area of around 5 - 10sqm of rear garden is not ideal but reasonable to serve the proposed style of dwelling. Moreover, there are large areas of public open space (Windsor Crescent and Burgess Pit).

7.34 With regard to housing density, the terrace of six terraced properties to the rear of

the site, 2 – 12 Windsor Crescent, is approximately 38 dwellings per hectare (dph) which is all but half of the proposed terrace of six houses, which is set within a 008 ha site thus equating to 75 dph. However, it must be accepted that when the Local Housing Authority constructed that terrace for social housing, land values were incomparable to those of today and the expectations of house and garden size were far in excess of today’s standards. Paragraph 123 of the revised NPPF clearly states that:

Page 126

‘Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities, and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site. In these circumstances:

plans should contain policies to optimise the use of land in their area and meet as much of the identified need for housing as possible. This will be tested robustly at examination, and should include the use of minimum density standards for city and town centres and other locations that are well served by public transport. These standards should seek a significant uplift (my emphasis) in the average density of residential development within these areas, unless it can be shown that there are strong reasons why this would be inappropriate.’

8.0 Summary and conclusion 8.1 The principle of additional residential development on this site is acceptable given

the size of the site and its location within a sustainable location, close to existing facilities and amenities. The crux of this application hinges on design and impact on residential amenity. The site is clearly large enough to accommodate some form of additional residential development.

8.2 It is considered that the presence of a new building at 8.5m in height within the

application site will change the outlook of the neighbouring residents and will have an effect on the neighbours’ amenity, especially given the contemporary design of the proposed scheme. However the plot is large enough to accommodate the footprint of this new structure and although there are no locally adopted standards, the intended distances between the proposed building and neighbouring properties are acceptable. It is considered that the scheme would maintain a quality of outlook from neighbouring residents and would meet reasonable expectations within this urban environment.

8.3 Concerns have been expressed about the contemporary design of the proposed

building and that it would be out of keeping with the surrounding area. Design quality is a subjective issue and although the unique design of the proposed building will be a departure from local styles and buildings within the locality, it may also be argued that the development would continue the evolution of designs in the area without disrupting any prevailing local distinctive characteristic.

8.4 As indicated above, the ‘tilted balance’ within the Framework is engaged and on

this basis there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which presumes in favour of the grant of permission unless harm significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the scheme. It is considered that although this development will have an impact on the character of the area and the amenity of neighbours, the adverse impacts of this scheme would not significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits. On this basis this development constitutes sustainable development in accordance with the Framework.

Page 127

9.0 Recommendation

9.1 It is recommended that Committee GRANT Planning Permission subject to the

following condition(s) and reasons:- 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three


Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 51 of the Planning and Complsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plans;

Ref: 17-2384-P-03 - Location plan scale 1/1250 (1/4) Ref: 17-2384-P-01 Rev. E - Block Plan, floor plans, elevations and sections ref B/3130-02 Rev A (2b/4) Ref: 17-2384-P-04 - Landscaping Specification (3/4) And the submitted details relating to tree and tree root protection measures.


3 The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment by RM Associates dated May 2018 as amended by Clive Wickes Associates (July 2018) and the following mitigation measures detailed within the Flood Risk Assessment:

The finished floor level of the building raised to no less than 500mm above

existing ground level.

Demountable defences to a height of 600mm to cover all ground floor doors

Flood resilience and resistance measures as described. The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and

subsequently remain in place.

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants and to accord with the objectives of Local Plan Policy H3 and the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

4 The rear (i.e. western) first and second floor windows as shown on plan 17-2384-

P-01 Rev. E shall be fitted with obscure glazing before the dwellings hereby approved are first occupied and shall be retained in that form thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity of the neighbouring residents and to accord with the objectives of Local Plan policy G1.

Page 128

5 No development shall take place above slab level until details of the materials

proposed to be used in the construction of the external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the new building is in keeping with the character of the area and to accord with Adopted Local Plan Policy G1.

6 All soft landscaping works and surface materials shall be carried out in

accordance with the approved details (plan ref: 17-2384-P-04) within 6 months of the date of the first occupation of any building or completion of development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees, plants, grassed areas which within a period of 5 years from the date of planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the first available planting season with others of similar size species or quality.


7 A scheme for the provision of electric vehicle recharge points at a minimum rate

of one per dwelling shall be installed and operational prior to the occupation of the dwellings and shall be retained thereafter for that purpose.

Reason: In compliance with 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. Lisa Hughes

Growth Manager

Page 129



Outline planning application for erection of 2 detached dwelling houses with details of access, with all other matters reserved

Land adjacent to Holly House, 84 Causeway East, Wyberton, Boston, PE21 7AR

Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Bell

Page 131

Agenda Item 8

Page 132



Reference No: B/18/0137 Expiry Date: 21-Jun-2018 Extension of Time: 15-Nov-2018 Application Type: Outline Planning Permission Proposal: Outline planning application for erection of 2 detached dwelling

houses with details of access, with all other matters reserved Site: Land adjacent to Holly House, 84 Causeway East, Wyberton,

Boston, PE21 7AR Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Bell Agent: Mr Neil Dowlman, Neil Dowlman Architecture Ward: Wyberton Parish: Wyberton Parish Council Case Officer: Lisa Hughes Third Party Reps: Three Link to Application: B/18/0137 Recommendation: REFUSE

Page 133



1.1 This application is presented to Planning Committee to clarify whether such sites

are within the countryside or are infill development. 2.0 Application Site and Proposal 2.1 The site is located along Causeway East, between the A16 and Wyberton village.

The plot is part of the residential curtilage of Holly House. The house to the west is close to the road and is of a traditional style with a relatively small curtilage and is surrounded by fields. The house to the east, which is in the ownership of the applicant, is set back within its plot. The road is predominantly bordered by established trees and hedgerows and due to its proximity to the A16 and Wyberton village has a semi urban characteristic. The application site itself, is enclosed by a 2 metre high close boarded fence. However, the wider character is predominantly of a rural area with open fields. The site is located approximately 40 metres from a bend on the road to the east.

2.2 The site includes an access point with a driveway through the site to the stables

at the rear. Within the site are a number of trees, none of which are protected. 2.3 The application seeks outline consent for two dwellings with all matters reserved

except for access. The access road is shown would be widened from approximately 5 metres to 11 metres. The dwellings would likely be detached and sited either side of the access road which leads to the rear of the site. The majority of trees would be retained on site but 7 trees would be removed.

3.0 Relevant History 3.1 None.

4.0 Relevant Policy 4.1 The development plan consists of the saved policies of the Boston Borough Local

Plan 1999. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 The land is designated as countryside within the Adopted Local Plan 1999. 4.3 The saved Local Plan Policies of relevance to this application are as follows:

G1 – Amenity G2 – Wildlife and Landscape Resources G3 – Surface and Foul Water Disposal G4 – Safeguarding the Water Environment G6 – Vehicular and Pedestrian Access H3 – Quality of Housing development T2 – Roads and Footpaths in New Developments CO1 – Development in the Countryside

Page 134

National Planning Policy Framework, 2018

4.4 The Council does not have a 5 year supply of housing and therefore policies

relevant to the supply of housing are out of date. The tilted balance in paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is therefore engaged and on this basis there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which presumes in favour of the grant of permission unless harm significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the scheme.

4.5 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF indicates for decision making, this means

c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, (this includes development proposals involving the provision of housing in situations where the Borough Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing) granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

4.6 Section 9 of the NPPF relates to transport issues. Paragraph 103 states:

‘The planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of these objectives. Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions, and improve air quality and public health. However, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making.’

4.7 Paragraphs 8 and 9 (Achieving Sustainable Development) set out three inter-

linked dimensions and roles of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These three roles should not be undertaken in isolation because they are mutually dependent. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF encourages housing in rural areas where it will maintain or enhance the vitality of rural communities. However, isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless one or more of the circumstances listed within paragraph 79 apply.

Page 135

South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 4.8 Paragraph 48 of the NPPF states:

Local planning authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

4.9 It is anticipated that the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan will likely be adopted

before the end of this year. Therefore the policies contained within this document are attracting increasing weight. Objections have not been received in relation to the settlement boundaries and therefore significant weight can be attributed to Policy 1 (Spatial Strategy) as set out within the Main Modifications. The site is not included within the village boundary within the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (SELLP). Therefore ‘Countryside’ ‘D’ within Policy 1 applies which states:

“In the Countryside development will be permitted that is necessary to such a

location and/or where it can be demonstrated that it meets the sustainable development needs of the area in terms of economic, community or environmental benefits.”

5.0 Representations 5.1 As a result of publicity three representations have been received from:

98 Causeway East; Ashgrove and Denemere Church Lane

5.2 The objections and comments can be summarised as follows; Out of character with the area which comprises dwellings within large plots

and of low density Development would likely lead to further development in the area. Do not consider there is a need for the development in view of Quadrant. 3 storey development would impact upon privacy. Contrary to Human Rights Act, Protocol 1, Article 1. Main road access development is from is narrow. Parking is not shown and

on-road parking would make the road more dangerous. Planted as apple orchard by WW1 veterans. Open countryside location. New local plan is not applicable and the site has not been identified for

development within it. 5 year housing supply is not applicable.

Page 136

6.0 Consultations

6.1 Wyberton Parish Council has advised they are not in a position to provide a

comment.

6.2 County Highways Authority has requested additional information in relation to a traffic speed survey, visibility splays and the provision of a 1.8 metre wide footway. This has been provided and Highways raise no objection subject to conditions and a s106 Planning Obligation to secure the delivery of initiating an investigation into the possibility of producing a new speed limit on this section of the road.

6.3 Lincolnshire Lead Local Flood Authority raise no objections.

6.4 Environment Agency raises no objection but notes no Flood Risk Assessment is available. Notwithstanding this, they recommend a number of conditions and advise their response only covers the risk of flooding from fluvial and tidal sources.

6.5 Black Sluice Internal Drainage Board raise no objection and provide advice. 7.0 Planning Issues and Discussions 7.1 The main considerations are:

Principle of the development Impact on the character of the locality Impact upon residential amenities Impact on highway safety Flood risk and drainage Sustainability Other Material Planning Considerations Weighing up

Principle of the development

7.2 The Council published and updated its assessment in relation to its 5-year housing supply (Assessment of 5-year housing land supply as at 31 March 2018). Depending upon whether the Liverpool or Sedgefield method of calculating housing requirement is used, there is currently an oversupply using the Liverpool method or undersupply using the Sedgefield Method. However, the report identifies that until the housing identified within the emerging plan can be counted as contributing towards the housing land supply the Sedgefield method should be used. Therefore, the Borough does not have a five year housing land supply

7.3 Policies are deemed out of date when the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing supply. The tilted balance in paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is therefore engaged and on this basis there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which for decision takers means:

Page 137

Approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development

without delay; or Where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which

are most important for determining the application are out of date, granting permission unless:

The application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development*, or

Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

7.4 The Framework states that permission should be granted unless adverse impact

would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits; or that policies in it [the Framework] indicate development should be restricted. Thus the fact that the site is not allocated for housing within the Adopted Plan and the proposed development would be located outside of the village’s boundary, does not necessarily make it unacceptable in principle. The NPPF therefore effectively replaces the housing supply policies in the Development Plan meaning that the weight to be attributed to Policy CO1 ‘Development in the Countryside’ is negligible.

7.5 Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the NPPF set out the three inter-linked dimensions and objectives of sustainable development - economic, social and environmental which are required to be jointly and simultaneously achieved. However, the objectives are not criteria against which every decision should be judged. The sustainability credentials of the site are discussed below under ‘Sustainability’.

7.6 The NPPF supports sustainable housing development in rural areas where it will maintain or enhance the vitality of rural communities.... and ...’Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a nearby village’ (paragraph 78). In this case, the site is outside of the village envelope and therefore this aspect of the NPPF is not triggered and the development is therefore not considered to be infill development.

7.7 Paragraph 79 permits isolated homes subject to meeting one of five circumstances. The Framework does not define isolated, however the 2017 Braintree District Council High Court Judgement (Braintree District Council v (1) Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, (2) Greyread Limited and (3) Granville Developments Limited [2017] EWHC 2743 (Admin)) considers that isolated should be taken as “far away from other places, buildings or people; remote”. It is therefore not considered to be an isolated plot, although it is remote, and therefore the circumstances identified do not apply. Notwithstanding this, the proposal does not fall within any of the criteria (e.g. dwelling for an agricultural worker, sub-division of an existing dwelling etc.) and the development would not be supported.

7.8 Policy G2 of the Local Plan seeks to resist development which would have an adverse effect on the existing landscape and Policy G1 seeks development which does not harm the general character of the area because of its scale, density, layout or appearance. These aims are consistent with the Framework and are addressed below.

Page 138

7.9 The settlement of Wyberton has limited facilities although is close to Boston for services. This site is located outside of the defined settlement within both the Adopted Plan and also the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan which is currently out for consultation in relation to modifications. As such, the principle of two dwellings on this parcel of land is unacceptable as it is not able to meet the objectives of Local Plan policies and/or the NPPF. However, it is necessary to fully assess the proposal to establish if ‘other material considerations’ indicate that planning permission should be granted.

Impact on the character of the locality 7.10 The site comprises almost 0.12ha of land, located outside of the village by

approximately 150 metres as the crow flies, at its closest point. The site sits between housing to the east and west. The application site has a frontage of approximately 30 metres. The layout and design of the housing, through the reserved matters application if outline permission is granted, can be controlled so that they are reflective of houses in the immediate area, together with appropriate soft landscaping to retain the countryside feel of the location.

7.11 The indicative plans show the dwellings and the width of the plots of a comparable size to one another, set back from the highway. The proximity of existing dwellings to the frontage is reflective of number 98 to the west, but closer than the host dwelling to the east. Due to the few houses in this location, there is not a ‘building line’ which should be followed and the indicative siting of the dwellings within one slightly further forwards of the other would result in a more ‘relaxed’ appearance which, in this location, would be appropriate. The depth of the rear gardens would be restricted by virtue of the access driveway leading to the stables beyond the application site. However, each dwelling would still be provided with an appropriate amount of outdoor amenity space.

7.12 In relation to its wider impact, Policy G1 identifies that for development to be approved, it should not substantially harm the amenities of other near residents or the general character of the area due to its nature, scale, density, layout, appearance or level of traffic generation. The impact upon residential amenity is discussed in the next section below.

7.13 In relation to the character of the wider streetscene, the site as previously identified is away from the village envelope. It is enclosed by a close-boarded timber fence, approximately 2 metres in height. The host dwelling’s boundary comprises a mixture of a brick wall and hedgerow above, with a hedge extending further to the west leading to the village with open fields. Opposite the site, the land is enclosed by trees and hedgerows. The house to the west is enclosed by a boundary hedge.

7.14 The house to the west (number 98) is relatively prominent within the streetscene when travelling from the west to the east, emphasized by its white brick facade. Travelling in the opposite direction, it has less prominence due to the landscaping on the site and within the application site. Glimpses of 84 Causeway East can be seen from both directions although this property is largely screened by soft landscaping. The overall character is therefore rural although the timber fence does have an urbanising effect.

7.15 Whilst the proposal is in outline, indicative plans of the layout, scale and landscaping have been submitted. The plans indicate the fence would be removed to facilitate the access as well as to provide a softer boundary to the site, complimenting the existing character of the area.

Page 139

Seven trees would likely be removed from the site, none of which are protected. Approximately 10 would likely be retained. The possible landscape alterations would be an overall improvement to the site and area although as landscaping is a matter for later consideration cannot be guaranteed would be implemented as shown if permission is granted.

7.16 The dwellings would result in a change to the character of the area together with the opening up of the access. The indicative houses, shown to be 2 ½ storeys in height would be prominent, particularly if they were higher than the existing dwelling at number 98, as shown. As scale is not a consideration of this application, the dwellings could be designed to be lower and less prominent. However, they would need to be at least 2 storeys in height to comply with the requirements of the Flood Risk Assessment. Notwithstanding the above considerations, this is a rural location where dwellings are well spaced from one another with only three in this particular location (i.e. west of the bend on Causeway East). As such, adding a further two would increase the numbers by 66% which would change the character of the area. They would also add built form where there is currently none. In addition, the activity associated with two additional dwellings would increase with comings and goings of people and vehicles which would also have impact on the character of the area. Policy G1 addresses amenity and states that permission will be refused when there is substantial harm. It is concluded from the above discussion that there would be harm resulting from housing development on this site and the harm would be substantial. Impact upon residential amenities

7.17 There are residential properties within the immediate vicinity of the site to the east and west. The application seeks outline permission for residential development with all matters reserved except for access. A Design & Access (D&A) Statement shows an indicative design taking account of the flood risk of the land. The flood risk identifies the buildings would need to be sited so that they are not at risk of the 1.5 to 2 metre (above ground level) flood depths. The indicative design within the D&A shows a 2 storey dwelling which would have the appearance of being 1 storey higher than the adjoining dwelling at number 98. The indicative plan also shows dormer windows in the side elevations. It is relevant that the plans are indicative and should planning permission be granted, the full impact of the layout, scale and design of the building could be taken into account at reserved matters stage. The distance shown between the existing and proposed dwelling is 8 metres (side to side relationship) which is in itself reasonable subject to later considerations regarding overlooking. However, it would be reasonable to agree parameters, via a condition, relating to the heights of these buildings if planning permission is granted. The relationship between the dwelling to the east and 84, as shown, is considered acceptable.

7.18 The indicative plans show 2 dwellings could be sited on the land, and with appropriate parameter conditions, maintain the existing amenity adjoining occupiers currently enjoy. Subject to a good quality scheme submitted at reserved matters stage, the plot is large enough to satisfactorily accommodate a sensitively designed residential development without causing substantial harm to residential amenity.

Page 140

Impact on Highway Safety

7.19 Vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed dwellings will be from Causeway East. It would require widening to facilitate the 2 dwellings. Lincolnshire County Council Highways has assessed the proposal and in view of the road being 60mph requested additional information regarding visibility splays. The applicant’s agent has responded to the request by advising that the applicant is in agreement to pay for the works necessary to reduce the speed limit to 40mph with 43m. visibility splays. Reducing the speed limit means that the visibility splays required to be provided are also reduced. In this case the requirement for a 40mph speed limit would be for visibility splays of 65 metres, not 43m. as suggested by the applicant’s agent. A 30mph speed limit would require visibility splays of 43m. Due to the proximity of the site to the bend to the east, visibility splays of 65m. could not be achieved and therefore the speed limit would need to be reduced from the current 60mph to 30mph.

7.20 Lincolnshire County Council Highways has responded to the proposed speed limit reduction advising that before speed limits could be amended that a speed reading survey would be required to be undertaken. This would need to be submitted to Lincolnshire County Council Highways for their consideration as to whether or not it would be appropriate to review and change the speed limits under their current policies. Survey data has been provided of the number and type of vehicles as well as the speed limits during the 14th to 20th September. Lincolnshire County Council Highways has reviewed the data and concludes the development is acceptable subject to the applicant contributing towards the costs of initiating an investigation into the possibility of producing a new speed limit on this section of the road. This would need to be secured via a S106 Planning Obligation.

7.21 Lincolnshire County Council Highways also request a 1.8 metre footway together with

arrangements for the disposal of surface water run-off from the highway also to be provided. The provision of the footway would be outside of the application site and would be in the region of 8 metres in length joining with the existing path outside of 84 Causeway East. As this would be outside of the application site, the only way to facilitate this would either by through a S106 Planning Obligation or via a Grampian condition i.e. a condition stating they cannot undertake the development until the path is provided. In this case, because no other obligation is required through a Planning Obligation, it is recommended that a condition is attached if approval is given. Flood Risk and Drainage

7.22 The application site is in an area identified as being within Environment Agency Flood Zone 3, a ‘danger for all/danger for most’ flood hazard and within a medium tidal probability of flooding. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been referenced within the D&A Statement although is not within the submitted documents. Notwithstanding this, the proposal has been assessed by the Environment Agency. The Agency recommend two conditions relating to ‘no ground floor habitable accommodation’ and a condition removing permitted development rights for extensions. The recommended conditions are on the basis of the information identifying that habitable accommodation will be sited within first and second floors.

7.23 In relation to the western plot and the discussion above under ‘Amenity’, it is likely that any future development in this location would be limited in its height so it fits appropriately within the streetscene and therefore a second floor might not be achievable, i.e. within the roofspace.

Page 141

It is however, anticipated that the Environment Agency’s recommended condition could be complied with whilst providing a reduction in height of the building although the amount and type of accommodation might be limited as a result.

7.24 With regards to the request requiring a condition removing permitted development rights, in most instances removal of permitted development rights at this stage of an outline application with all matters other than access for later consideration, such a request would be unreasonable. However, as risk from flooding is one of the key considerations with this proposal, it would be reasonable to impose such a condition for this reason only.

7.25 The Black Sluice Internal Drainage Board’s letter provides advice regarding the discharge of water. It would be reasonable to attach a copy of the letter to any decision notice for any future developer’s attention. Sustainability

7.26 The Framework sets out three dimensions and roles of sustainable development - social, economic and environmental. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Framework explain that these three roles are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways. Paragraph 9 of the 2018 NPPF has changed the criteria for consideration into sustainable development compared to the 2012 version where it states that the objectives in paragraph 8 are “... not criteria against which every decision can or should be judged...”.

7.27 Economic objective - the proposal would provide limited contribution. Employment would be provided at construction stage which may support local businesses and the local economy, in addition to when the dwellings are occupied.

7.28 Social objective – the proposal would provide additional housing. The NPPF identifies the social objectives as provision of a sufficient number and range of homes, safe and well-designed development, accessible services and open space that support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being. The proposal would contribute towards the provision of housing which, in view of failing to meet the 5-year housing land supply has significant weight attached. Conditions can be attached to any approval to ensure they are well-designed and safe. They would benefit from having private gardens as well as access to the countryside. However, accessible services are more restricted in view of the need to use a private motor car for accessing shops and other facilities. However, this is not considered to be a significant objection against the proposal in lieu of the SELLP encouraging developments within village boundaries. Whilst this development is outside Wyberton village boundary, it is not considered to be significantly different in transport terms to warrant a refusal on this ground.

7.29 Environmental objective seeks to make effective use of land, improve biodiversity, minimise waste and pollution, mitigating and adapting to climate change. In

environmental terms, the development would have a moderately adverse impact on the local environment given the site is currently undeveloped. It is acknowledged that as the land is residential curtilage that the applicant has permitted development rights to construct buildings on the site. However, the environmental impact of buildings used incidentally to the main residence is considered to be slightly less than compared to two residential dwellings. The application does not meet the environmental thread of sustainability.

Page 142

Other Material Planning Considerations

7.30 The majority of neighbour representations have been addressed within the discussion above. In relation to the possibility of the site having been planted by war veterans as an apple orchard, this does not benefit from any statutory protection. It is therefore not possible to withhold an objection on these grounds. None of the trees on site are protected.

7.31 The site is not identified within the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan for development, however, this does not in itself make development on this site inappropriate. There is a need for housing within the borough as evidenced by the Council unable to meet its 5-year housing land supply.

7.32 Lastly, the consideration of this application against national and local plan policies and its impact upon the character of the area, amenity of neighbours etc. complies with the requirements defined within the Human Rights Act 2008. Weighing Up

7.33 In accordance with the NPPF, applications should be approved unless policies in the Framework protect areas or assets of particular importance and provide clear reasons for refusing the proposed development or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.

7.34 The Council does not have a 5-year housing land supply and therefore significant weight needs to be attributed to this. However, the site is not an allocated housing site in either the adopted or draft local plan. The site is remote from the village, not being within its defined boundary, with only 3 houses within the immediate proximity. It could therefore be argued as being remote. The site is not an asset of particular importance in relation to assets of importance. However, the approval of permission in this location would lead to harm in terms of its detrimental impact upon the character of the area when assessed against the Framework policies as a whole. It is therefore concluded the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits.

8.0 Summary and Conclusion 8.1 The Framework indicates that housing applications should be considered in the

context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, adding that housing applications should be approved if the authority cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing supply unless any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole or specific policies in the Framework indicate such developments should be restricted.

8.2 It is considered that this development would have a materially harmful effect on the character of the area due to its location outside of the Wyberton village settlement. Wyberton is also a minor village which lacks many facilities and amenities and future occupiers of the proposed dwellings would need to travel to access key services, employment and shops, which is a minor factor against this application. However, this is offset with regard to the SELLP encouraging new housing developments to the villages, with Wyberton’s defined village boundary not being a significant distance away. Its location, in terms of accessing facilities is therefore acceptable.

Page 143

8.3 Subject to the applicant entering into a Planning Obligation to secure the

necessary investigations required in order to reduce the speed limits on the highway and provision of footpaths and disposal of surface water, the proposal is acceptable in highway terms.

8.4 Overall it is considered that the adverse impacts are significantly and demonstrably harmful and are not outweighed by the benefits of approving this application.

9.0 Recommendation 9.1 It is recommended that Committee REFUSE Planning Permission for the following

reasons -

1. The proposed development, by virtue of the location outside of the village envelope together with the addition of two dwellings when compared to the existing character of the area would result in an urbanising effect which would have significant and demonstrable harm to its rural setting. The proposal is therefore contrary to Boston Borough Local Plan Policies C01 and G1, South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Policy 1 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, paragraphs 78 and 79 which seek to resist new dwellings unless the harm is outweighed by the benefits. The proposal, due to its location is also considered to fail to meet the aims of sustainable development as defined in paragraph 8 and 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 by introducing built form away from the main village settlement.

2. Causeway East is located on a 60mph highway. The development requires the provision of visibility splays of 124 metres in both directions. Due to the proximity of the bend in the road to the east, such visibility splays cannot be achieved. Whilst the applicant has proposed to cover the cost of reducing the speed limit on the road to 30mph, a S106 Planning Obligation has not been entered into to contribute towards the cost of initiating an investigation into the possibility of producing a new speed limit on the highway outside of the application site. The proposal therefore fails to ensure the safe use of the highway required as a result of this development contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

Refused Drawing Numbers: Site Location Plan (1a/4)

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.

Lisa Hughes

Development Manager

Page 144

REPORT TO: Planning Committee

DATE: 16 October 2018

SUBJECT: Receipt of Appeal Decisions

PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Councillor Michael Cooper

REPORT AUTHOR: Growth Manager

EXEMPT REPORT?

No

SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to advise members of the receipt of appeal decisions in respect of:

Location: 120 Skirbeck Road, Boston, PE21 6DG

Proposal: Change of use from existing residential space to form shop/off licence Planning Reference: B/17/0373 Planning Decision: Delegated Reason(s) for Refusal: 1. The application site is located along a busy public highway,

adjacent to Mount Bridge and close to road junctions. There is limited on street parking within the vicinity of the site and there is insufficient space within the site to provide adequate parking for customer and delivery vehicles. There is also inadequate space within the site to allow a vehicle to enter and leave the site in forward gear. The development if permitted would result in vehicles reversing out onto a busy highway causing a danger to other road users and will also generate parking along the surrounding highway network where on street parking is limited given existing parking restrictions. This development will result in severe congestion along the surrounding road network and will cause substantial danger to highway safety. This development therefore does not comply with the objectives of Local Plan policies G1, G6, ED6 and RTC 3.

B O S T O N B O R O U G H C O U N C I L

Page 145

Agenda Item 9

2. The application site is located within a residential area and the subject building

is attached to a building which is used for residential purposes. It is considered that the activities that will be generated by this development, in particular with regard to noise and general disturbance especially during unsociable hours, will substantially harm the residential amenity of the occupants of the adjacent and surrounding residential properties, contrary to the objectives of Local Plan policies G1, G6, ED6 and RTC 3.

Appeal Decision: Dismissed

A copy of the Inspector’s decision is attached to this report.

RECOMMENDATION The Committee are asked to note this report.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION To address the Service Plan 2018/19.

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 It is established practice that all appeal decisions are reported to Planning Committee as

part of performance monitoring and to consider if any particular decisions raise issues which might influence practice or future decision making.

1.2 All applicants have a right of appeal against the decision of the planning authority, over a refusal, an approval with conditions (if the conditions are unacceptable to the applicant) and in cases of ‘non-determination’ where the authority has not issued a decision within the prescribed 8 or 13-week period without an agreed ‘extension of time’. This right of appeal applies to all categories and types of applications – including Enforcement and other Notices where there are defined categories or grounds of appeal which any appellant has to follow.

2.0 APPEAL DECISIONS

120 Skirbeck Road, Boston, PE21 6DG

2.1 The Inspector considered that there were two issues:

a) The safe and efficient operation of the highway; and b) The living conditions of adjoining residential occupiers, with particular regard to noise

and disturbance.

Page 146

2.2 Safe and Efficient Operation of the Highway - The Inspector noted at the time of the site

visit that the Skirbeck Road and other nearby roads had no on-street parking available and appeared to suffering from some parking stress. The retail use and residential use at first floor would both require parking provision and, with no information provided regarding spaces for each of the uses, it was understood they would both share the frontage. With the dropped kerb only providing access to one of the two spaces on the frontage, users accessing the retail unit would be reliant on on-street parking which would be unsatisfactory. In addition, any users of the off-street parking spaces, due to the constrained nature of the frontage, would not be able to manoeuvre within the site to enter and exit in forward gear. As such the development would be detrimental to highway safety.

2.3 Living Conditions - The proposed operating hours of the retail use are 05:00-23:30, 7 days a week. The amenity of adjoining residential occupants as well as those within the flat above need to be considered. The appellant advised that noise insulation would be provided but no information regarding this had been submitted. The Inspector also considered that comings and goings outside of the retail shop would have impact upon amenity especially those early and late in the day. The appellant had indicated that shorter opening hours would be acceptable, but had not proposed any for the Inspector to consider. As such, the hours requested within the application form were assessed and found would lead to harm to the surrounding residential occupiers.

2.4 On this basis, the Inspector dismissed the appeal, refusing planning permission.

3.0 CONCLUSION

3.1 For the year to date 7 out of 15 appeal decisions have gone in favour of the Council (47%) which equates to 53% going against the Council. This compares unfavourably to the local Performance Target which would tolerate 1 out of 5 going against the Council (20%).

3.2 The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government monitors authorities in relation to the number of major and non-major applications overturned (i.e. allowed) at appeal. The threshold is for fewer than 20% of all major applications determined overturned at appeal over a rolling two-year period (i.e. the total number of major decisions divided by the total number overturned). For authorities who exceed this target, they will be classed as ‘poorly performing’ and applications for major developments may be made by developers directly to the Planning Inspectorate. The statistics collated by MHCLG shows 1 appeal in the previous 2 years as being overturned (up to the end of June 2018) of a total number of 69 decisions. This represents 1.4%. The Council is therefore well within the statutory target.

3.3 The Government is also monitoring the threshold for quality of decisions for non-major applications, the threshold for which is 10%. Like the major threshold this is the total number of non-major applications overturned at appeal compared to the total number of non-major decisions made. The statistics collated by MHCLG up until the end of June 2018, show a total of 610 applications having been determined of which 5 were allowed. The percentage is therefore 0.8%. The Council is therefore significantly within government’s target and not at risk of being classed as poorly performing.

Page 147

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS None

ANY OTHER IMPLICATIONS None

CONSULTATION Portfolio Holder: Councillor Michael Cooper

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Appeal decision 120 Skirbeck Road, Boston, PE21 6DG

BACKGROUND PAPERS Background papers used in the production of this report are listed below: -

Document title Appeal file and application file. 120 Skirbeck Road, Boston, PE21 6DG - B/17/0373

Where the document can be viewed Development Management

Page 148

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 September 2018

by Rachael A Bust BSc (Hons) MA MSc LLM MIEnvSci MInstLM MCMI MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

Decision date: 26 September 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/Z2505/W/18/3198000

120 Skirbeck Road, Boston PE21 6DG

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The appeal is made by Mr N Dinler against the decision of Boston Borough Council.

The application Ref B/17/0373, dated 12 September 2017, was refused by notice dated

6 December 2017.

The development proposed is the change of use from existing residential space to form

shop/off licence.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary matters

2. Since the Council made its decision the revised National Planning Policy

Framework (the Framework) has been published on 24 July 2018 and replaces the first Framework published in March 2012. The main parties have been provided with an opportunity to comment on the revised Framework and its

relevance to the determination of this appeal. References to the Framework in this decision therefore reflect the revised Framework.

3. The Council referred to Policy RTC 3 of the Boston Borough Local Plan (LP) within the reasons for refusal. They have confirmed that this is not a saved policy. As it is no longer part of the adopted development plan, I shall have no

regard to this policy within the determination of this appeal.

Main Issues

4. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on:

the safe and efficient operation of the highway; and

the living conditions of adjoining residential occupiers, with particular

regard to noise and disturbance.

Reasons

Highway

5. The appeal site is located on Skirbeck Road which is a road to and from the centre of Boston. At the time of my daytime site visit, which I acknowledge is

only a snapshot in time; Skirbeck Road was busy with a steady flow of 2-way

Page 149


Appeal Decision APP/Z2505/W/18/3198000

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

traffic. The road itself has parking restrictions along much of its length within

the vicinity of the appeal site. I have had regard to the photographs submitted by an interested person. Although they are not annotated with the dates and

times that they were taken, the level of traffic and parking is generally consistent with my own observations.

6. Other nearby roads including Charles Street and Alfred Street offer limited on-

street parking. At the time of my site visit there were no on-street parking spaces available on these 2 roads. Whilst I have no detailed evidence on

parking capacity in the area surrounding the appeal site from my observations at the time of my visit it appears to be an area experiencing a degree of parking stress. Although the appellant suggests that parking opportunities

could exist along Windsor Bank, in my view this is an unrealistic option given that this road lies on the opposite side of Maud Foster Drain. In any event at

the time of my visit there were only a couple of parking spaces available on Windsor Bank.

7. Given that the proposed retail use only involves part of the ground floor the

remainder of the ground floor and first floor of the appeal property would continue to be used as a residential dwelling. As such the dwelling would

require on-going parking provision. The submitted plans do not illustrate any delineation between the parking available for the proposed retail use and the on-going residential use. In the absence of any definitive information, given

the lack of any on-street car parking on Skirbeck Road within the immediate vicinity it is reasonable to assume that customers and occupiers of the dwelling

would seek to make use of the site frontage for car parking.

8. The proposal incorporates an area of off-street parking utilising an existing vehicle crossover (dropped kerb). The application form suggests that the

appeal site contains 4 car parking spaces. From my observations I am not satisfied that this is an accurate assessment of the on-site car parking space.

The proposed plan illustrates the provision of parking space for 2 vehicles together with space at the side for a delivery vehicle; this would appear to be a more accurate assessment of the space available on-site.

9. However, the single vehicle crossover effectively means that only one of these 2 spaces can be effectively used as the second parking space and the delivery

space require access through the first parking space immediately adjacent to the vehicle crossover. Whilst it is reasonable for a private dwelling to have parking spaces reliant on access through another parking space when in

common ownership; such an arrangement for retail premises would be in my judgement wholly unsatisfactory. Accordingly, in practical terms I consider

that the proposed retail use would realistically be reliant upon on-street parking provision and one off-street parking space as a maximum.

10. The appellant identifies that the relevant parking standard for a shop would be to have one parking space per 30 square metres. The proposed floor space for the retail use is described as being 25 square metres. As such the appellant

contends that on-site parking is not required, however, I disagree. Based upon the information that has been provided to me there is no suggestion that there

is a minimum threshold before the parking standards take effect, as such in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I must assume that any shop between 1 and 30 square metres would be required to provide one on-site parking

space. The on-site parking provision would allow for this parking standard to

Page 150




be met and a condition could be imposed to satisfactorily reserve one parking

space for the use of the retail premises.

11. Notwithstanding the fact that an on-site parking space could be reserved for

the retail use, the appeal frontage is relatively narrow in depth and as such I do not consider that there is sufficient space within the appeal site for a vehicle to park and to satisfactorily turn around to enter and exit the appeal site in a

forward gear. Accordingly, the most likely use of the parking space would require vehicles to reverse out of the appeal site. As a consequence of the

curvature of the highway, visibility over the bridge becomes more limited and from my site visit I am not satisfied that such vehicle manoeuvring would be acceptable. Whilst this parking arrangement may already be in use, the

intensity of vehicle movements associated with the property being a dwelling and also the frequency of vehicle movements associated with a shop would be

materially different. Given the lack of available on-street parking the appeal proposal is likely to result in unacceptable levels of inappropriate parking.

12. Whilst I appreciate that some customers may walk to the proposed shop, there

is no effective mechanism to control how customers would travel. Given the busy nature of Skirbeck Road it is reasonable to assume that the shop would

not only serve customers in the immediate locality but also passing traffic.

13. I note the Highway Authority did not object to the proposal. However, given the constrained nature of the off-street parking space; the lack of available on-

street parking; the limited visibility over the bridge; the lack of on-site turning facilities; the likely frequency and intensity of vehicle movements arising from

the proposed use; and the likely resultant inappropriate parking, I find that the appeal proposal would not provide safe and suitable access to the appeal site for all users and would result in an unacceptable impact on the safe and

efficient operation of the highway.

14. Accordingly, the appeal proposal would be contrary to Saved Policies G6 and

ED6 of the LP; these policies seek, amongst other things, that development has satisfactory means of pedestrian and vehicular access. Furthermore, it would fail to comply with paragraph 109 of the Framework which seeks to resist

proposals that would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Living conditions

15. The appeal property is currently a residential dwelling and is attached to another residential dwelling; it is therefore necessary to assess the potential impact on the living conditions of occupiers of the attached dwelling. In

addition, as the appeal proposal only involves the change of use of part of the ground floor to a retail use, it is also necessary to consider the impact on the

living conditions of the occupiers of the remainder of the appeal property.

16. The appellant suggests that the proposed opening hours would be 05:00 –

23:30 hours for 7 days per week, although no delivery times have been indicated. I find that the proposed opening hours are extensive and as such whether or not they would include or exclude delivery times, would give rise to

an increase in noise and disturbance from comings and goings over the majority of each day.

17. I note that the Council’s Environmental Health Manager has concerns that the proposed opening hours would result in a serious loss of amenity particularly to

Page 151




the attached residential property. The appellant suggests that mitigation

measures such as sound insulation to walls could be installed. However, no such details have been submitted for consideration and this would not address

the impact of noise and disturbance from the comings and goings outside of the property itself.

18. Whilst it is not uncommon for retail uses to take place within residential areas,

in assessing any new proposal it is appropriate to ensure that the living conditions of existing occupiers are adequately protected. A retail use of this

nature would be likely to generate a significant number of comings and goings including from passing traffic. I find that an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance would arise from the proposed use which would adversely affect

the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining properties over an excessive period of each day.

19. Whilst reduced hours of opening/deliveries could be controlled through a planning condition, I must consider the appeal on the basis of the opening hours requested. This includes early morning and late evening opening which

are more noise sensitive. I note that the appellant indicates that there could have been an opportunity to negotiate further with the Council on the opening

hours to seek to overcome the objection from the Environmental Health Manager. However, the appellant has not presented any reduced opening hours for me to consider in this appeal.

20. Accordingly the appeal proposal would harm the living conditions of adjoining occupiers with particular regard to noise and disturbance. Therefore it would

fail to comply with Saved Policies G1 and ED6 of the LP. These policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development does not harm the amenity of nearby residents.

Other matters

21. The appellant refers to No 2 Alfred Street which operates as a retail store.

Whilst I saw this on my site visit, I have been presented with no details regarding this use and whether or not it is lawful. Consequently it limits the weight I can give it in my determination of this appeal.

22. In addition several other examples of retail uses that exist or have been permitted have been drawn to my attention. However, no substantive

evidence has been submitted to help me understand the planning circumstances of each of the examples. In any event, each application and appeal must be determined on their own individual merits and that is what I

have done in this case.

23. Interested parties have raised concerns regarding the proposed use leading to

an increase in anti-social behaviour and rubbish. There is no cogent evidence to substantiate such concerns. Other legislative provisions also exist to

address such matters. The need for the proposed retail is also questioned on the basis that similar shops exist elsewhere within the vicinity of the site. However, the policies of the LP do not require a need to be demonstrated.

24. In addition, interested parties have also raised a number of other concerns which relate to non-planning matters, and therefore fall outside the scope of

this appeal.

Page 152




25. I am also aware from representations from other parties with a legal interest in

the property that they do not agree to the change of use taking place. This is a private matter between the parties with a legal interest of the property. In

determining this appeal I am required to have regard to the provisions of the development plan and other material planning considerations. Whether a proposal can or cannot be implemented due to ownership factors is not in this

case relevant to my determination.

Conclusion

26. For the reasons given above, and taking account of all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Rachael A Bust

INSPECTOR

Page 153



REPORT TO: Planning Committee

DATE: 16th October 2018

SUBJECT: Planning Application Validation Checklist

PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Councillor Michael Cooper

REPORT AUTHOR: Lisa Hughes

EXEMPT REPORT? No

SUMMARY Planning applications require information to be provided by the applicant in order for the proposal to be considered against national and local plan policies as well as other material considerations. The Government set out within the National Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 14-016-20140306) the information required to be submitted for an application to be valid (includes application form, fee, site and location plans). However, other information is more often than not required, such as floor and elevation plans, flood risk assessments, planning statements etc. This information is not statutorily required to make an application valid and is currently requested by the Council, if not submitted with the application after the application is notified to neighbours and Councillors on the weekly list. This can cause delay in the determination of the application. The Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 enables local planning authorities to adopt a ‘local list’ of requirements. This, the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and Planning Practice Guidance requires Local Planning Authorities to only request information that is relevant, necessary and material to the development proposed and to review their validation checklist every 2 years in order to be able to rely on information requirements within their local list. A local list has been prepared for planning applications detailing the information required for the differing types of proposals that might be submitted to the Council as well as detailing when the relevant information will be required. A shortened, and simpler, version has been created for householders.

B O S T O N B O R O U G H C O U N C I L

Page 155

Agenda Item 10

RECOMMENDATIONS That Planning Committee note and agree, as appropriate:

The proposed planning application validation checklists; The proposed checklists will be subject to consultation for a minimum of 6 weeks

(in accordance with government guidance) to statutory consultees, agents, developers and town and parish council’s; and

A report on the summary of consultation responses will be presented to Planning Committee

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS To enable the Council to adopt a local list of planning application validation requirements. This will assist applicants by knowing the information required to be submitted with an application in order for it to be valid, thus speeding up the planning process. It should assist parties interested in the application in having all information available from the outset enabling comprehensive comments on a development proposal.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not adopting a local planning application validation checklist.

REPORT 1. Planning Application Validation Checklist

1.1 Information is required to determine a planning application. The Government

introduced on 6 April 2008, a national list of documents and information necessary in order to validate planning applications. These comprise:

Completed application form Fee Site Location Plan (showing the site in relation to the surrounding area Ownership Certificate and Agricultural Land Declaration

1.2 In addition, a Design & Access Statement is required for certain planning

applications. There are also specific requirements set out for Outline planning applications which requires an indication of the area or areas where access points to the development will be provided to be shown, even if access is a reserved matter. Applications subject to Environmental Impact Assessment also require an Environmental Statement.

Page 156

1.3 Any other information required such as elevations or floor plans of the proposal, statements such as flood risk are not included within the national list and therefore cannot be currently requested in order to make the application valid. As a consequence, the Council will consult on planning applications, sometimes with very limited information for the public, consultees and Councillors to view. Any additional information required to enable a proposal to be properly considered is requested during the course of the application. This has a number of drawbacks for all concerned.

1.4 The public are keen to take part in the planning process but having insufficient

information provides frustration and many responses to planning applications address this issue. When the information is received, further notification is sent out. For residents, in particular, it is anticipated that they do not wish to spend their time in needing to repeatedly make comments on planning proposals and is likely to lead to frustration and dissatisfaction with the planning process. For statutory consultees, their workloads will be increased by needing to review the initial information as well as any additional information submitted. For the applicant, it leads to a delay in decision making due to the time needed to prepare the information as well as time necessary for additional consultations to take place. Sending more than one letter also increases the cost for the Council in terms of printing and postage costs.

1.5 It also has an impact upon the reputation of the Council. The public, quite

understandably, do not understand that there is only limited information that can be requested. Many response letters are critical that the application has been accepted and validated without the necessary information, inferring the Council has not undertaken its duty.

1.6 Councils’ are able to adopt a local list clarifying the information required to

determine an application. The information required will be dependent upon the application type, scale and location. Information within the local list and required when validating the application must be:

reasonable having regard, in particular, to the nature and scale of the

proposed development; and require particulars of, or evidence about, a matter only if it is reasonable to

think that the matter will be a material consideration in the determination of the application.

1.7 These statutory tests are set out in section 62 (4A) of the Town and Country

Planning Act 1990 (inserted by the Growth and Infrastructure Act) and article 11(3)(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

1.8 Once adopted, a local list is required to be published on the Councils website and

is then reviewed every 2 years.

Page 157

1.9 It is also possible for an applicant, if a Local Planning Authority, determine that

additional information is required in order to validate the application, to dispute this by issuing a notice under article 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. There is then a process for both the Local Planning Authority and applicant to go through. Very few applications are disputed in terms of the information provided due to the criteria above (paragraph 1.6) being complied with.

1.10 Two planning application validation checklists have been prepared. One for

householder proposals and the other for all other types. The ‘all other’, Appendix 1, is quite extensive as it caters for every type of application that might be submitted. Householder applications generally require far less information and a simpler checklist has therefore been prepared (Appendix 2) to assist with such proposals.

1.11 A disadvantage of adopting a local list is that applications can take longer from

receipt before they become valid. However, local lists have been in existence across many councils for over 10 years and the majority of professional agents are familiar with these. It is not anticipated that it will take long for agents to become familiar with Boston’s list. In addition, the consultation proposed will include agents. For householders who submit their own application, the majority are not familiar with the planning process and this requirement would not be perceived as anything different.

CONCLUSION

The Council currently validates planning applications in accordance with the national list. This requires very little information to be submitted in order to make an application valid. This leads to delay in the processing of many applications, frustration for people partaking in the planning process as well as increasing costs for the Council. Adopting a local list of application requirements will overcome this and is considered to outweigh any disadvantages.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The introduction of the checklist is likely to have a limited positive financial benefit by reducing the number of letters that are sent to the public regarding planning applications. Additionally, the cost of requesting the information by Planning Support, once they are fully trained, rather than the Planning Officer will result in savings although this will be unseen financial benefit.

LEGAL & EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS

Section 62 (4A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by the Growth and Infrastructure Act) Article 11(3)(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 Equality – None

Page 158

ANY OTHER IMPLICATIONS The overall reputation of the Council is likely to improve through residents and businesses in the Borough not being notified numerous times due to insufficient information being received at the outset. Decisions should be made more quickly with the need to request time extensions becoming the exception rather than the rule. Overall performance might therefore not increase as a result but the number of applications that each officer has ‘on hand’ at any given time should reduce.

CONSULTATION It is recommended that consultation is undertaken with:

Professional agents Neighbours through planning application notification letters Consultees Councillors Parish Councils

In addition, the consultation should be advertised on the Council’s website for a minimum of 6-weeks.

APPENDICES Appendices are listed below and attached to the back of the report: -

APPENDIX A Planning Application Validation Checklist

APPENDIX B Householder Planning Application Validation Checklist

BACKGROUND PAPERS No background papers as defined in Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 were used in the production of this report.

CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THIS REPORT

A report on this item has not been previously considered by a Council body.

Page 159


Appendix A

Validation Checklist

for

Planning and Other Applications

ADOPTED xxxx

Page 161

Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Submitting Applications....................................................................................................................... 3

Format of Submissions .................................................................................................................... 4

The Validation Process ....................................................................................................................... 5

Pre-application discussions ................................................................................................................ 5

A. NATIONAL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................ 6

1. The completed standard application form .................................................................................... 6

2. The correct fee ......................................................................................................................... 6

3. Ownership Certificates and Agricultural Land Declaration ........................................................ 6

4. Location Plan .............................................................................................................................. 7

5. Site Plan/Block Plan .................................................................................................................... 7

6. Design and Access Statements ................................................................................................... 7

7. Environmental Statement ............................................................................................................ 8

B. LOCAL REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................................... 11

PLANS .............................................................................................................................................. 11

1. Existing and Proposed Floor Plans ............................................................................................ 11

2. Existing and Proposed Elevations ............................................................................................. 11

3. Existing and proposed site sections and finished floor and site levels ....................................... 12

4. Roof plans ................................................................................................................................. 12

APPLICATION TYPES or PROPOSALS ............................................................................................ 12

1. Advertisements ........................................................................................................................ 12

2. Outline Planning Applications ................................................................................................... 13

3. Plant and Flue Drawings .......................................................................................................... 13

4. Shop Fronts.............................................................................................................................. 14

STATEMENTS AND REPORTS ....................................................................................................... 14

1. Affordable Housing Statement ................................................................................................ 14

2. Agricultural Needs Statement .................................................................................................... 15

3. Air Quality Assessment ............................................................................................................. 15

4. Biodiversity Survey and Report ................................................................................................. 16

5. Daylight/Sunlight Assessment ................................................................................................... 18

6. Flood Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................ 18

7. Habitats Regulation Assessment .............................................................................................. 18

8. Heritage Assessment ............................................................................................................... 19

9. Land Contamination Assessment ............................................................................................. 20

10. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments ........................................................................... 21

11. Landscaping Scheme ............................................................................................................. 21

12. Lighting Assessment .............................................................................................................. 22

13. Marketing Statement .............................................................................................................. 22

14. Noise Impact Assessment ...................................................................................................... 23

15. Open Space Assessment ....................................................................................................... 23

16. Parking and Access Arrangements ........................................................................................ 24

17. Planning Obligations/Draft Heads of Terms ............................................................................ 24 Page 162

18. Planning Statement ................................................................................................................ 25

19. Public Rights of Way .............................................................................................................. 25

20. Retail and other Main Town Centre Use Assessment ............................................................. 26

21. Statement of Community Involvement .................................................................................... 26

22. Structural Survey .................................................................................................................... 27

23. Summary of Application.......................................................................................................... 27

24. Sustainable Drainage Assessment ......................................................................................... 27

25. Telecommunications Development Supplementary Information ............................................. 28

25. Tourism .................................................................................................................................. 28

26. Transport Statement/Assessment and Travel Plan ................................................................. 28

27. Tree Survey/Arboricultural Implications Assessment .............................................................. 29

28. Utilities Statement and Foul Sewage Assessment (including Surface Water) ......................... 30

29. Ventilation/Extraction Details .................................................................................................. 30

30. Viability Assessments ............................................................................................................. 30

Page 163

Introduction A planning application cannot start to be considered or made valid until it has been received in a completed form; the purpose of this checklist is to provide the necessary prior information so that applicants and agents can be efficient in submitting applications in a correct and completed form. The information requested with any application will be in accordance with the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013: reasonable having regard, in particular, to the nature and scale of the proposed development; and

require particulars of, or evidence about, a matter only if it is reasonable to think that the matter will be a material consideration in the determination of the application.

The checklist covers a wide range of issues and matters that affect the consideration of applications but the requirements for each individual application will depend on the proposal, its scale, size and its location. A separate and simpler checklist is available and should be used for Householder applications.

The purpose of the checklist is to inform the applicant of the information that is needed to make a complete application in order for the Development Management department to deal with applications in an efficient and timely manner. It should in most cases avoid the need to seek further information during the application process which can cause significant delays or affect the outcome of the application. The checklist is split into two main parts: A. National requirements – these are mandatory B. Local requirements – these are determined by the Council and the submission of this information will vary depending on the nature of the proposal.

Submitting Applications We recommend the submission of applications electronically via the Planning Portal – www.planningportal.co.uk. Payment of application fees can also be made via the Planning Portal, by paying by cheque or over the phone by credit or debit card (01205 314305).

If you choose to submit a paper copy of your application, you will need to provide one copy of all documents and forms, unless you have already been advised that more paper copies are required.

You can help us to process your application more quickly by:

Submitting your application online and making payment electronically Including all the necessary information Avoiding the use of large file sizes (Maximum file size of 10MB) Including a schedule of the documents submitted Clearly annotating all document files accordingly Agreeing the information requirements with us prior to submission, including the

submission of additional copies of documents or CDs if required Corresponding with us by email ([email protected])

Page 164

http://www.planningportal.co.uk/

Format of Submissions

It is requested that any personal or sensitive information is removed / redacted from applications/reports etc. prior to their submission. Such information includes signatures, personal phone numbers, personal email addresses and photographs containing images of children and vulnerable adults and vehicle registration numbers.

Any information you consider should be withheld from the public register should be brought to our attention.

Applications will not be invalidated if they have such information, however it might lead to a delay in its registration.

Sensitive Information 1h. Format

Page 165

The Validation Process If you do not submit an application in accordance with the requirements of the checklist we are entitled to declare that there is something missing from the application and this will make it invalid. If this happens, we will set out our reasons for doing so and specify the information required in order to make the application valid. Wherever possible we will seek to do this via email and within 3 working days of receiving your application for minor and other applications and 5 working days for major developments. If you do not agree that a particular piece of information is required to accompany your application, please provide written justification with the application and this will be considered. The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (Article 12) sets out the procedure if there is disagreement regarding the information required to make an application valid. If we do not hear from you within 21 days, or the requested information is not received, your submitted application and any associated documents will be returned to you. If an apparently valid application is later found to be invalid because of a factual or legal inaccuracy or the planning fee is returned as unpaid, the original start date for processing the application will be disregarded. The time from application to decision will start again on the revised validation date. The time period from application to decision begins the day after a valid planning application and the correct fee (where a fee is payable) havs been received. If the application is submitted electronically it will be treated as having been delivered at 9am on the next working day following the date of its transmission. The day a valid application is received counts as day zero. Applications will be marked with the date of receipt from their valid date. We will send a letter to you confirming the validity of the application and the start date of the statutory period for determination.

Pre-application discussions The Council encourages applicants to contact the Development Management team as early as possible and to engage in pre-application discussions. This can be beneficial in helping applicants to choose the correct type of application to make, to avoid unsuccessful applications, to improve the quality of their schemes and to ensure the correct plans and documents are submitted with their application. This can also save considerable time and avoid the need for repeat applications or appeals. The Council charges for this service but charges are proportionate to the scale of development. A pre-application form and details of charges can be found at http://www.boston.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3875

For some larger developments, applicants may also like to contact the Environment Agency or other statutory consultees who may have their own policies and procedures on giving pre-application advice. When pre-application advice is sought and given, the applicant will be expected to show how regard has been made to that advice in the formal application.

Page 166

http://www.boston.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3875

6

A. NATIONAL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

These requirements are set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 and are relevant for applications across England and Wales.

All drawings must: Be at a recognised metric scale Show a north point Include a linear scale bar

All drawings MUST include a reference number (and highlight any revisions as

applicable) as these are referred to in planning conditions.

1. The completed standard application form

Required for all applications

The preferred way of this being submitted is electronically through the Planning Portal but emailed or paper copies will be accepted. Applicants should ensure they select the correct forms for the type of application that is being made. An applicant’s name and address should be completed as well as agent details where applicable. Contact details for the applicant (or agent where applicable) should include an email address. All relevant questions should be answered and if not relevant to the application, then the words ‘not applicable’ should be inserted for clarity.

2. The correct fee

Required for all applications other than works to a tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order and Listed Building Consent unless an exemption or concession applies

Where a fee is necessary it must be provided in accordance with the statutory fee scale. If you consider that no fee is necessary, you should specify the reasons for this view. If, however, no fee is required because the application is a resubmission of a previously refused or withdrawn proposal (and this exemption has not previously been sought by the applicant at any time in the past for the application site), the planning reference number of the previous application should be provided. An up-to-date schedule of fees can be viewed on the Planning Portal’s website: https://ecab.planningportal.co.uk/uploads/english_application_fees.pdf

3. Ownership Certificates and Agricultural Land Declaration

Required for all outline, full and listed building consent applications

One of the following Certificates A, B, C or D must be completed stating the ownership of the property: Certificate A: When the applicant is the sole owner; Certificate B: When person(s) other than the applicant are known to own part or all of

the application site; Certificates C and D: When not all or none of the owners of the site are known. For this purpose an ‘owner’ is anyone with a freehold interest, or leasehold interest

the unexpired term of which is not less than 7 years. Page 167

https://ecab.planningportal.co.uk/uploads/english_application_fees.pdf

7

A Part 1 notice must be sent by the applicant to any owners of the application site other than the applicant if Certificate B has been completed. It may also be required if Certificate C has been completed. A copy must be served on each of the individuals identified in the relevant certificate.

4. Location Plan

Required for all applications.

This should: Be up to date and of Ordnance Survey quality; Be at a scale of 1:1250 or 1:2500;

Show a north point; Show at least two named roads; Show surrounding buildings which are named or numbered; Clearly identify the application site with a red edge which should include all the land

required to carry out the proposed development (such as land required for access to the site from a public highway);

Show any other land in the control or ownership of the applicant which is close to or adjacent to the application site with a blue edge; and

Show the exact location of the application site.

5. Site Plan/Block Plan


This should: Be at a scale of 1:500 or 1:200; Show the direction of North; Show the proposed development in relation to the site boundaries and other existing

buildings and features on the site; and Include written/annotated dimensions between new buildings and site boundaries.

It should also include the following, unless these would not influence or be affected by the proposed development: All the buildings, roads and footpaths on land adjoining the site including access

arrangements; All public rights of way crossing or adjoining the site; Any watercourses; Any bridges, retaining walls; The position of all trees on the site, and those on adjacent land that could influence or

be affected by the development; The extent and type of any hard surfacing; and Boundary treatment including walls or fencing where this is proposed.

6. Design and Access Statements

Required for:

All major applications All development within a conservation area where the development is for one

or more dwellings, or for a building where the new floor space is 100m² or more

Page 168

8

All applications for Listed Building Consent

The Design and Access Statement should explain and justify your proposal in a structured way. It should explain why a proposal has been designed in the manner that is proposed. The level of detail required will depend on the scale and complexity of the application, and the length of the statement will vary accordingly. In short, Design and Access Statements should: Explain the design principles and concepts that have been applied to the following

aspects of the development: – i) amount ii) layout iii) scale iv) landscaping, and v) appearance.

Demonstrate the steps taken to appraise the context of the development and how the design of the development takes that context into account in relation to its proposed use;

Explain the policy adopted as to access, and how policies relating to access in relevant local development documents have been taken into account;

Take into account the impact of the proposal on key gateway and waterfront

locations;

State what, if any, consultation has been undertaken on issues relating to access to the development and what account has been taken of the outcome of any such consultation; and

Explain how any specific issues which might affect access to the development have

been addressed. When an application is submitted in parallel with an application requiring a heritage statement, a single combined Design and Access Statement could be included as part of the explanation and justification for the design approach. The combined statement should include the details above as well as the additional requirements in relation to Heritage Statements (please refer to Heritage Statements under Local Requirements). Further information/policy background:

Policy 29: The Historic Environment of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/making-an-application#Design-and-Access-Statement

Design and Access Statements are not required for applications to remove or modify conditions (material minor amendment applications under s73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; engineering or mining operations; applications relating to a change of use of land and/or buildings; advertisement consent, works to trees, the storage of hazardous substances; prior approval applications; non-material amendment applications and Reserved Matters applications.

7. Environmental Statement

Required for development listed under Schedule 1 and may be required for developments defined within Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning

Page 169

http://www.gov.uk/guidance/making-an-application#Design-and-Access-Statement

9

(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017

The aim of Environmental Impact Assessment is to protect the environment by ensuring that a local planning authority when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a project which is likely to have significant effects on the environment, does so in the full knowledge of the likely significant effects, and takes these into account in the decision making process. The Regulations only apply to certain types of development and/or projects; they set out a procedure for identifying those projects which should be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment, and for assessing, consulting and coming to a decision on those projects which are likely to have significant environmental effects.

Screening

The first stage is called ‘Screening’ and is used to determine whether a proposed project falls within the remit of the Regulations, whether it is likely to have a significant effect on the environment and therefore requires an Environmental Assessment. Certain developments/projects at stated thresholds are listed within Schedule 1 of the Regulations and these will always require an Environmental Statement. Other developments and projects are listed under Schedule 2 of the Regulations and where proposals fall within these descriptions and thresholds. It is for the Local Planning Authority to carry out a ‘Screening Opinion’ to determine whether an Environmental Statement is required. Where development may require an Environmental Statement, the applicant can make a Screening Request in writing by supplying the following information as listed under Regulation 8 of the Regulations:- a plan sufficient to identify the land; a description of the development, including in particular –

a description of the physical characteristics of the whole development and, where relevant, of demolition works;

a description of the location of the development, with particular regard to the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected;

a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by

the development; and to the extent that the information is available, a description of any likely significant

effects of the development on the environment resulting from- the expected residues and emissions and the production of waste, where

relevant; and the use of natural resources, in particular soil, land, water and biodiversity.

A person requesting a screening opinion may also provide details of any features of the proposed development and any measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what otherwise might have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

Scoping

Where an Environmental Statement is necessary, the applicant is not required to consult anyone on the content of the Statement before its preparation and submission with a planning application but applicants will find it useful to do so – this is called the ‘Scoping’ of an Environmental Assessment and provides the Authority’s opinion as to the scope and level of detail of the further information to be provided in the Environmental Statement. A request should include the following (Regulation 10):- a plan sufficient to identify the land;

a description of the proposed development, including its location and technical capacity;

Page 170

10

an explanation of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment; and

such other information or representations as the person making the request may

wish to provide or make. Environmental Statement (ES)

An Environmental Statement (ES) is defined under Regulation 14 and must contain the information specified in Schedule 4 of the Regulations. It may consist of one or more documents, but it must constitute a single compilation of those documents into a single Statement. It must include a non-technical summary (of the information under paragraphs 1 to 8 of Schedule 4) and be prepared by a competent expert which should be set out in a statement outlining the relevant expertise or qualifications of such experts. Where a scoping opinion has been issued, the ES should be based upon the most recent scoping opinion adopted and include the information reasonably required for reaching a reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the development on the environment, taking into account current knowledge and methods of assessment and should also take into account the results of any relevant UK environmental assessment which is reasonably available to the applicant. The ES should be proportionate and have its main emphasis on the significant environmental effects and not be any longer than is necessary to properly address those effects. Impacts which have little or no significance for the particular development in question will need only very brief treatment to indicate that their possible relevance has been considered. Schedule 4 also allows for the submission of mitigation measures that are envisaged to offset the significant adverse effects on the environment that are identified in the ES. Further information/policy background: Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017 No.571 The National Planning Practice Guidance - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/environmental-impact-assessment

Page 171

11

B. LOCAL REQUIREMENTS

The list below captures the majority of types of documents and additional information that will be necessary to be prepared and submitted with planning applications. The requirements for each application will depend on the type of development, its scale and the nature of the constraints relating to its location. The list is not completely exhaustive and there may be occasions where further information is required. Advice at the pre-application stage should be sought for clarification of these requirements. Where reference is made to a Major application, this relates to the definition contained within the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015:-

“major development” means development involving any one or more of the following—

(a) the provision of dwellinghouses where—

(i) the number of dwellinghouses to be provided is 10 or more; or (ii) the development is to be carried out on a site having an area of 0.5 hectares

or more and it is not known whether the development falls within sub-paragraph (c)(i);

(b) the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is 1,000 square metres or more; or

(c) development carried out on a site having an area of 1 hectare or more.

PLANS

1. Existing and Proposed Floor Plans

Required for all applications where:

New floor space is proposed A change in the use of the floor space is proposed

These should: Be drawn to a recognised metric scale, preferably 1:50 or 1:100; Include written/annotated external dimensions of new buildings/extensions; Explain the proposal in detail; Clearly show any existing walls or buildings to be demolished; and Show the development in context with any adjacent buildings (including property

numbers where applicable).

2. Existing and Proposed Elevations

Required for all applications where:

New elevations are proposed; or Existing elevations are altered

Page 172

12 6

These should: Be drawn to a recognised metric scale, preferably 1:50 or 1:100; Include written/annotated external dimensions of new buildings/extensions Explain the proposal in detail; Show details of the existing building and those for the proposed development; Show all sides of the property (including any blank elevations) and indicate where

possible the building materials and the style, materials and finish of windows and doors; Correspond exactly with the plan drawings; and Clearly show the relationship with any adjoining buildings or buildings in close proximity

and provide details of the positions of any window or door openings on each building.

3. Existing and proposed site sections and finished floor and site levels

Required for applications:

Where a proposal involves a change in ground levels – drawings should be submitted to show both existing and finished site and floor levels, or

On sloping sites – information is required concerning alterations to levels, the way in which a proposal sits within the site and in particular the relative levels between existing and proposed land and buildings

These should: Be drawn to a recognised metric scale, preferably at 1:50 or 1:100; Show a cross section through the proposed building(s); Demonstrate how the proposed building(s) relates to existing site levels and to

neighbouring development; Ensure that levels relate to a fixed datum point off site; Provide a full Topographical Survey for major proposals; and Include a section of existing/proposed access onto the local road network where

applicable.

4. Roof plans

Required for applications where new roof details are proposed

These should: Be drawn to a recognised metric scale, preferably at 1:50 or 1:100; and Include details of roofing materials, vents etc.

APPLICATION TYPES or PROPOSALS

A separate checklist has been created for householder applications as these require less

information.

1. Advertisements

Required for all advertisement applications

Page 173

13

All plans to be drawn at a minimum scale of 1:50, or 1:100. Plans should be proportionate to the nature and size of the proposal, correctly titled, with individual drawing numbers on each plan. All sides of the proposal must be shown and these should indicate, where possible, the proposed building materials and the style, materials and finish of windows and doors. Blank elevations must also be included; if only to show that this is in fact the case. Plans, elevations and sections Show the following details on drawings: submit existing and proposed sections through any fascia or projecting sign making sure

the section is cut through to show the illumination at scale 1:20. For those illuminated: the method, type and colour of illumination is it externally or internally lit? type of lighting – spot lights, trough lights, halo illumination? the size of the light fittings leves of luminaires (cd/m²) or Lux Further information/policy background:

Planning Practice Guidance – https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200136/policy_and_legislation

2. Outline Planning Applications

Required for all outline planning applications

These applications are generally only appropriate for new build developments outside conservation areas and are not appropriate for changes of use, or for proposals which are within or adjacent to a conservation area or involve development to or adjacent to a listed building.

Where access is a reserved matter there is a requirement to indicate where access points to the development would be situated.

If access is to be determined at the outline stage all transport matters must be dealt with in detail, including the submission of a Transport Impact Assessment where necessary. Plans should be proportionate to the nature and size of the proposal, correctly titled, with individual drawing numbers on each plan.

The Council reserves the right to request further information in the form of e.g. indicative drawings and other supplementary documents, if it is not possible to determine the application on the reserved matters indicated (Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. Further information/policy background:

Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015

2j. Plant and Flue Drawings

3. Plant and Flue Drawings

Page 174

14

Required for installation of plant, flues, ventilation, extraction or air conditioning equipment.

Plans, elevations and sections to: Show equipment, ducting and acoustic enclosures or screening on plans, elevations and

sections Show the location of neighbouring windows on drawings cross referenced to the acoustic

report

Plans should be proportionate to the nature and size of the proposal, correctly titled, with individual drawing numbers on each plan.

4. Shop Fronts

Required for shop fronts

2k. ATMs Plans, elevations and sections to show: Section of security grilles or shutters, if proposed, indicating the location of the shutter

box and canopy. If the proposal affects the access to the upper floors in any way, ground floor plans showing separate access to upper floors

For proposals including the installation of ATMs, details of height (for disabled access) and details of any illuminated adverts

If advertisements are shown on the plans, these may require a combined planning permission and advertisement consent application. Further information/policy background:

National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Section 12. 2l Basements or Excavations

STATEMENTS AND REPORTS

1. Affordable Housing Statement

Required for all developments of 11 or more dwellings or residential developments with an internal floor area of 1,000sqm or more

Affordable housing can be a variety of forms of housing provided at below market rates for eligible persons. Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 describes affordable housing as affordable housing for rent, starter homes, discount market sales housing and other affordable routes (including shared ownership, relevant equity loans, other low cost homes for sale and rent to buy). Policy 18: Affordable Housing of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 sets out the requirements for affordable housing.

A statement is required which sets out the following:- The percentage of affordable housing to be provided on the site The tenure of the proposed affordable housing The number of bedrooms/dwelling size for affordable housing and starter homes

Page 175

15

Details of the Registered Provider/Housing Association where applicable (for affordable housing)

Details of an off-site contribution where applicable The delivery mechanism for providing and controlling the affordable housing and starter

homes

Where an application fails to meet the foregoing requirements, the statement should explain the reasons for that. In the event that the reasons relate to viability, a Viability Assessment must also be submitted the application (prepared by an appropriately qualified person) to demonstrate the level of affordable housing that can be achieved on the site in accordance with Policy 6 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036. Further information/policy background:

Policy 18: Affordable Housing of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Policy 6: Developer Contributions of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036

2. Agricultural Needs Statement

Required for applications for agricultural buildings and agricultural workers dwelling including removal of agricultural habitation condition

The statement should include the following:- Details of the agricultural land holding, including but distinguishing between land owned

or rented, preferably in the form of a DEFRA map of land registered to the applicant. Where this includes rented land, details of how long the land has been rented and type/duration of tenancy agreement

The size of the agricultural unit on which the building is to be erected Details of existing buildings on the holding, including their location, dimensions and what

they are used for Details of the farming enterprise, including information about the scale of activities,

numbers and types of livestock, breeding activities etc. Precise details of how the proposed building is to be used and why it is needed Explanation of how the size, design and siting of the building has been arrived at For applications relating to agricultural workers dwellings, further details will also be

required to either justify the need for a key worker‘s accommodation or the removal of an occupancy condition. This should include details of existing accommodation on the holding, a history of former dwellings on the holding and when they were sold, profit and loss accounts for the holding over the preceding three year period and in the case of an application removing an agricultural occupancy condition, details of all employment on the agricultural unit, details of a comprehensive marketing exercise (normally over 12 months but could be longer depending on circumstances).

Further information/policy background:

Policy xxxx

3. Air Quality Assessment

May be required for applications that would: Include housing and within or adjoining an Air Quality Management Area; Require an Environmental Statement; Require a Transport Assessment;

Page 176

16

Result in increased traffic congestion, or create a change in traffic volumes or vehicle speed;

Significantly alter the traffic composition in an area (i.e. bus stations, HGV Parks etc.); Include proposals for new car parking (>300 spaces) or coach/ lorry parks; or Have an effect on sensitive areas such as ecological sites, or areas previously defined

as having poor air quality (including Air Quality Management Areas)

There are currently 2 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) in Boston at Haven Bridge and Bargate Bridge. Assessments should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development proposed and the level of concern about air quality and because of this are likely to be locationally specific. The scope and content of supporting information is therefore best discussed and agreed between the Local Planning Authority and the Council’s Environmental Health Officers before it is commissio ned. Air quality is a consideration in Environmental Impact Assessment, if one is required, and also in a Habitats Regulations Appropriate Assessment.

The following could be included in assessments and be usefully agreed at the outset: a description of baseline conditions and how these could change; relevant air quality concerns; the assessment methods to be adopted and any requirements around verification of

modelling air quality; sensitive locations; the basis for assessing impact and determining the significance of an impact; construction phase impact; and/or acceptable mitigation measures.


Policy 30: Pollution of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 The National Planning Policy Framework 2018 Air Quality - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/air-quality--3 Clean Air Zone Framework May 2017 – Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and Department of Transport

4. Biodiversity Survey and Report

Required for all developments which may impact on biodiversity and ecological

networks or affect protected species

Biodiversity and ecological networks includes: European Sites of International Importance: RAMSAR, Protection Area (SPA) and

Special Area of Conservation (SAC): 1 of each are within the Borough UK Sites of National Importance: Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI): 1 is within the

Borough National Nature Reserves (NNR) : there is 1 within the Borough and 5 within 15km of

the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 2011-2036area RSPB managed/owned sites: there are 2 within the Borough

Local Wildlife Sites

Page 177

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/environmental-impact-assessment

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/environmental-impact-assessment

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-competent-authority-coordination-under-the-habitats-regulations

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-competent-authority-coordination-under-the-habitats-regulations

http://www.gov.uk/guidance/air-quality--3

17

All major housing sites within 10km of The Wash are required to be submitted with a Habitats Regulation Assessment in accordance with Policy 28 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036. Further information regarding information required is detailed below under ‘Habitats Regulation Assessment. Proposals which may affect any of the other designated biodiversity and ecological networks described above which might affect the flora, fauna, geology or habitat of these areas will require an up to date biodiversity survey/ecological assessment, carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist. An survey and report (Phase 1 Habit Survey) will also be required for proposals that may affect the habitat of protected species or priority species. This is likely to affect applications for the following:- Barn conversions

Demolition of buildings Changes of use or alterations to buildings that affect roof spaces A biodiversity survey and report (Phase 1 Habit Survey) should include the following information: Details about the existing biodiversity interests and protected species found on the

development site (including any possible impacts that the new development may have on them)

Details of any proposed measures to prevent mitigate or compensate for the possible impacts of the proposed development.

Where necessary, an appropriate ecological survey (e.g. walkover, Phase 1 Habitat Survey, National Vegetation Classification or protected species) should include details of any statutory or non-statutory sites, other existing biodiversity interests and protected species or potential for them found on the development site. These will include any significant wildlife habitats or features and any species or potential for them protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended by 2017 Regulations) or the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Details of any proposed measures necessary to prevent, mitigate or compensate for the possible impacts of the proposed development on both habitats and species will also be required. These may need to include details for long term maintenance and management.

This applies to those types of development requiring an EIA and an Environmental Statement as well as to those where any locally valuable habitats or protected species is involved. Without appropriate surveys, when required, the application may be refused planning permission for insufficient information. Further information/policy background:

Policy 28: The Natural Environment of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-

2036 National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Section 15 Further advice may be found in: Planning Practice Guidance – https://www.gov.uk/guidance/natural-environment Further guidance and the Protected Species Trigger List may be found in Association of Local Government Ecologists (ALGE) document on Validation of Planning Applications – Template for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, http://www.alge.org.uk/publications/index.php; and Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2010:2006. Planning to halt the loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity Conservation standards for planning in the UK. Code of Practice. British Standards Institute.

Page 178

18

5. Daylight/Sunlight Assessment

Required for all applications that may cause significant issues of overshadowing of

existing or proposed buildings or adjoining land

This would be required where buildings are in close proximity or there is a difference between storey heights between buildings which may lead to an impact on daylight or sunlight into habitable rooms or gardens/amenity space.

Further information/policy background: Policy 2: Development Managment of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Building Research Establishment: Site Layout Planning for daylight and sunlight: a good practice guide, 2011

6. Flood Risk Assessment

Required for all developments within Flood Zones 2 and 3, for developments with an

application site of 1 hectare or more in Flood Zone 1 and for other developments that

may be affected by specific localised flooding issues or contribute to flooding

problems within or outside the application site

A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) should: Assess the risks from all forms of flooding to and from the development Demonstrate how those flood risks will be managed or mitigated Identify opportunities to reduce the probability and consequences of flooding Address the requirement for safe access to and from the development in areas at risk of

flooding


Policy 4: Strategic Approach to Flood Risk of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 The National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Section 14 National Planning Practice Guidance - mhttps://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change South East Lincolnshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (March 2017) - http://www.southeastlincslocalplan.org/water/

7. Habitats Regulation Assessment

Required for all major housing developments within 10km of European Sites of

international importance: RAMSAR, Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of

Conservation (SAC)

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (‘the Habitats Regulations’) transpose the European Habitats Directive 1992 and the Wild Birds Directive 2009 (‘the Directives’) into English law.

Page 179

19

The Habitats Regulations require the Local Planning Authority to ‘secure compliance’ with the requirements of the Directives when specifically discharging its nature conservation functions and to have regard to the requirements of the Directives when exercising all of its other functions (Regulation 9). The Planning Authority becomes a ‘competent authority’ under the Regulations when determining planning applications that will or may affect European Sites (for example classified SPAs and designated SACs). In accordance with the Habitats Regulations, a formal assessment of the implications of a development that may be capable of affecting the designated interest features of European Sites is required before determining the application. The Assessment is required to be submitted by the applicant and comprises several distinct stages collectively described as a ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’ (or HRA). For any development which is not wholly directly connected with or necessary to the conservation management of the site’s qualifying features, this will include formal screening for any Likely Significant Effects (either alone or in combination with other developments). Where these effects cannot be excluded, assessing them in more detail through an appropriate assessment (AA) is required to ascertain that an adverse effect on the integrity of the site can be ruled out. Where such an adverse effect on the site cannot be ruled out, and no alternative solutions can be identified, then the development can only then proceed if there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest and if the necessary compensatory measures can be secured. The HRA must be submitted with any proposal that may affect a European Site(s) for assessment. Where the project-level HRA concludes that avoidance and/or mitigation measures are required, it is expected that Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANGs) should be provided either on-site and/or through a financial contribution to provide and/or enhance natural greenspace in the locality in accordance with Policy 28 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Further information/policy background:

Policy 28: The Natural Environment of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036

8. Heritage Assessment

Required for applications to: Alter, demolish, extend a listed building or a building within a conservation area Development that may affect the setting of a listed building or conservation area Works that may affect a Scheduled Ancient Monument or its setting Works to a historic park or garden Works affecting a known or suspected archaeological site

This is required for heritage assets which includes Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Archaeological sites, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks/Gardens of Special Historic Interest and Non-designated heritage assets that are of local historic, architectural or cultural value including locally listed buildings identified by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). Non-designated heritage assets can be identified by the LPA during its consideration of an application. In these circumstances, the applicant would be requested to submit a Heritage Statement during the course of the application.

Page 180

20

The degree of detail provided in the Assessment should be proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset(s) that may be affected and the works proposed. For example, works to listed buildings or demolition of a building/structure in a conservation area will require greater detail than for example, the replacement of a boundary wall in a conservation area. Paragraph 187 of the NPPF states that as a minimum, the relevant historic environment record, held by Lincolnshire County Council, should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary.

A Heritage Assessment should include:- An assessment of significance of the heritage asset including any contribution made to

its setting. The assessment should identify and describe all the heritage assets that may be affected by the proposed development and assess their heritage significance, and in particular, assess the significance of those parts of the building/site affected by the proposed works. The description of the asset(s) should normally go beyond simply quoting published material such as a list description or Historic Environment Record (HER) entry, because it should enable the reader to understand the potential impact of the proposals on the significance. Well captioned photographs and other illustrations are very useful as a substitute for text and can help to keep a statement concise and to the point.

A clear description of the proposed development. In particular, details of those aspects

of the work that are likely to affect the significance of the heritage asset(s) or their setting. Where appropriate, this could include a schedule, method statement and/or specification of works.

An assessment of the impacts of the proposals on the significance of the heritage asset

and/or its setting

Justification for the proposed works and any mitigation measures. Explain why the

proposed works are desirable or necessary and what steps have been taken to avoid, minimise or mitigate any harm to the significance of the heritage asset. If the works include any elements which result in harm to heritage, the assessment provides an opportunity to explain what issues you consider weigh in favour of the proposal(s).

A Heritage Statement can form part of a Design and Access Statement. Further information/policy background:

Policy 29: The Historic Environment of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Various Conservation Area Appraisals Lincolnshire Historic Environment Record - https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/residents/environment-and-planning/conservation/historic-environment-record/36930.article

9. Land Contamination Assessment

Required for all applications where: Contamination is known or suspected Development is proposed within 250m of a current or former landfill site The proposed use involves residential, schools or hospital development,

allotments or other uses that are vulnerable to ground contamination

Page 181

https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/residents/environment-and-planning/conservation/historic-environment-record/36930.article


21

In most cases a Phase I Desk Top Study (preliminary risk assessment) will be sufficient at the application stage. There will be some cases, however, when the known risks are so severe that intrusive site investigations (Phase II) also need to be submitted with the assessment. In the above situations, we also recommend that developers arrange pre-application discussions with the LPA, Environmental Health, Environment Agency & Building Control to help identify the likelihood, possible extent and nature of contamination, and its implications for the development being considered. Further information/policy background:

Policy 30: Pollution of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036

10. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments

Required for developments in the rural area such as residential or commercial development or development of wind turbines that is likely to have a significant impact on the landscape in the open countryside.

In respect of residential development, this would normally only apply to major applications. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) combines the magnitude of change with the sensitivity of the landscape to the proposed development, which provides a measure of the significance of the effect. The Assessment will also consider the extent to which the long term landscape and visual effects are significant. A LVIA should be undertaken by a qualified landscape professional and follow an appropriate methodology. In some cases, particularly where the proposal would result in a change to the landscape, the LVIA should also include a Landscape Analysis and Management Plan. Further information/policy background:

Policy 28: The Natural Environment of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment published jointly by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment in 2013.

11. Landscaping Scheme

Required for the following (apart from outline applications where landscaping has been accepted as a reserved matter):

New dwellings Institutional, training, educational or residential accommodation Industrial, commercial, office, retail or leisure development New car parks Large extensions to existing premises Works by statutory undertakers

where existing and proposed landscaping would contribute to the acceptability of the proposed scheme

A landscaping scheme should identify the main areas of hard and soft landscaping proposals on a site layout, indicating existing and proposed planting. For major applications

Page 182

22

or where landscaping is likely to be of material importance to the proposal, a more detailed landscaping scheme should be provided which should include the following:

A detailed plan of the hard and soft landscaping proposals Plant species, planting heights, planting densities, seeding mixes Details of how existing planting will be protected during construction should also be

provided Methods of cultivation and plant establishment, including staking and mulching Details of levels, paving treatment and materials Details of long-term maintenance and landscape management



12. Lighting Assessment

Required for applications involving floodlighting near sensitive areas such as residential properties, heritage assets, protected wildlife and countryside or applications to discharge conditions relating to lighting

A lighting assessment should be based on a Lighting Plan, providing details of the intensity of external light measured in Lux (one lumen per square metre), showing the distribution and intensity of light as contours both within and on land/buildings surrounding the application site. This should normally be carried out by a lighting engineer. Details, positions, heights, beam orientation and the design of the luminaires should also be included, as well as details of any lighting shields to be used. The Assessment should show how the lighting has been designed to avoid light spillage, glare and light nuisance into or onto surrounding properties or sensitive areas. Where applicable, such as floodlighting on sports pitches, the hours of use when floodlighting is intended to be used (and any mechanism for the auto switch off of lighting) should also be provided. Further information/policy background:

Policy 2: Development Management of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Policy 3: Design of New Development of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Policy 30: Pollution of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Policy 33: Delivering a More Sustainable Transport Network of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036

13. Marketing Statement

Required for applications:- involving the loss of employment land on designated sites for the loss of a community asset, such as a village shop, post office, public

house, community centre, theatre etc.

This should set out the steps that have been taken to actively market the site for its continued use for employment purpose or specific use that has a community function, as applicable. The statement should describe the extent of the marketing, the time periods

Page 183

23

when this has taken place, what this has involved (with evidence of particulars) and show that the expectations of the marketing have been reasonable and flexible. The statement should also provide details of all the interest that has been expressed in the site/property as a result of the marketing being carried out. Further information/policy background:

Policy 7: Improving South East Lincolnshire’s Employment Land Portfolio of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036

14. Noise Impact Assessment

Required for applications:- which involve noisy uses (including vibration) and may cause of a loss of amenity

Which involve a noise sensitive development to an existing noisy area

A noise assessment will be required where a proposal may impact on levels of existing amenities (such as from industrial processes, plant, machinery, traffic, music, late night activity) or would potentially lead to lower standards of amenity for new occupiers of the development (such as housing) due to existing levels of background noise. Where applicable, noise assessments should detail any measures that would satisfactorily mitigate against the identified impacts on amenity. It is equally important that new development involving noisy activities should wherever possible be sited away from noise sensitive uses. Measures should be explored that could be taken to control the source of or limit the exposure to noise. Paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework contains guidance on this matter.

Further information/policy background: Policy 30: Pollution of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 British Standard (BS) 4142: 2014 - Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas. British Standard (BS) 8233:2014 - Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings Noise Policy Statement for England, Defra (2010)

15. Open Space Assessment

Required for applications:- which involve the loss or partial loss of existing open space, including areas

of public open space and major open areas All major residential developments

The Assessment should quantify the amount, quality and type of open space that would be lost as a result of the proposal and assess the quantitative and qualitative impact on the overall supply in the local area. Reference should be made to the typologies of open space (parks, natural and semi- natural open space, amenity green space, sports pitches, play facilities for children and young people, allotments, cemeteries and churchyards and green corridors). Where a proposal would lead to a deficit in supply of open space, including playing pitches, then details of any replacement provision should be provided within the assessment. For playing pitches, Sport England provides specific advice on the level of information that is required.

In respect of residential developments, the applicant should identify the requirements for on and off-site provision of open space typologies and play area provision. Where off-site

Page 184

24

provision is appropriate, then details of an off-site financial contribution and how it is proposed to be used should be provided.

Where the proposal would result in a loss of open space, the assessment should incorporate a Green Infrastructure Audit of the affected open space and include measures for the following:- How the functions of the green infrastructure will be retained or enhanced as a result of

the proposal; or Where the loss or negative impact on the green infrastructure is unavoidable, the

mitigation measures that are proposed or replacement of the green infrastructure.


Policy 2: Development Management of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Policy 3: Design of New Development of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Policy 30: Pollution of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Policy 32: Community, Health and Well-Being of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Sport England - www.sportengland.org/planningapplications Planning Practice Guidance - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-space-sports-and-recreation-facilities-public-rights-of-way-and-local-green-space

16. Parking and Access Arrangements

Required for all applications:-

which will generate traffic or increase demand for parking will require servicing will result in the loss of existing parking or servicing provision

Parking for the appropriate type, size and number of cars and other vehicles, and servicing to cater for deliveries, refuse vehicles etc., and turning areas, should be provided on a detailed site layout, including swept paths where necessary. This shall demonstrate that the site is capable of being serviced by the largest vehicles that will visit the site and/or allows vehicles to enter/leave in forward gear. Where parking provision would not comply with the Council’s car parking standards, any mitigation measures and impacts to on-street parking should be assessed. Details of secure motorcycle and cycle parking should be included within the submitted plans. Electric charging points are being sought for both residential and non-residential development in order to ensure that developments take account of changes in vehicle technology and also to meet other plan objectives in reducing carbon emissions. The number, location and details of electric charging facilities should be explained in a statement and indicated on a proposed car parking layout.


Policy 36: Vehicle and Cycle Parking of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036

17. Planning Obligations/Draft Heads of Terms

Required for all applications that will require a planning obligation/section 106 Agreement

Page 185

http://www.sportengland.org/planningapplications

25

These are normally only required for major developments where contributions are required to facilitate the provision of affordable housing, infrastructure, open space, education or community needs or to secure specific requirements that cannot be suitably dealt with by a planning condition. Where these requirements can be anticipated to make a development acceptable, a Draft Heads of Terms for a legal agreement or unilateral undertaking (under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) should be submitted with an application.


Policy 6: Developer Contributions of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 The National Planning Practice Guidance - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-obligations Regulation 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010

18. Planning Statement

Required for:- all major planning applications applications that are not in accordance with the development plan proposals that require detailed policy consideration

This should provide an explanation and justification for the proposals in the context of relevant national and local plan policies. A suitable statement may include: An assessment of the site and its context A description of the proposed development An assessment of the relevant planning policy and an appraisal of how the proposal

accords with that policy context The need for the development and any benefits that would arise from the proposed

development (such as economic benefits from new employment, provision of community facilities, affordable housing, environmental improvements, regeneration etc.)

19. Public Rights of Way

Required for all applications affecting a public right of way

Public rights of way are identified and described on a Definitive Map & Statement which is held by Lincolnshire County Council and can be viewed on their web site (see below) or offices. Public rights of way include the following:

footpaths - for walking, running, mobility scooters or powered wheelchairs bridleways - for walking, horse riding, bicycles, mobility scooters or powered wheelchairs restricted byways - for any transport without a motor and mobility scooters or powered

wheelchairs byways open to all traffic - for any kind of transport, including cars (but are mainly used

by walkers, cyclists and horse riders) Where a public right of way crosses an application site or is in close proximity or passes along an access route to the proposed site or is otherwise affected by the proposed development, then the route of the right of way must be clearly marked on a proposed site

Page 186

26

plan at a scale where its distance from any development can be measured (such as 1:200 or in some cases, 1:100 may also be necessary). In the event that the proposal would require a diversion of a public right of way, the existing and diverted routes should be identified and clearly labelled on a site plan. A statement should be included in the application to explain why the diversion is necessary as well as an assessment of how it would affect the enjoyment and convenience of the use of the public right of way. The impact of the proposal on the public right of way would be a material consideration in determining the planning application but if granted, would not authorise any proposed diversion as this would need to be subject to a separate application for a diversion order that can be made under either the Highways Act 1980 or the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Further information/policy background:

Policy 33: Delivering a More Sustainable Transport Network of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 National Planning Policy Guidance - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-space-sports-and-recreation-facilities-public-rights-of-way-and-local-green-space Lincolnshire County Council - http://row.lincolnshire.gov.uk/

20. Retail and other Main Town Centre Use Assessment

Required for: A sequential assessment is required for all applications for main town centre

uses* that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036; or

An Impact Assessment is required for all applications for main town centre uses over 500sqm (net) or more outside of Boston town centre or provides a retail floor space of 250sqm (net) or more within Kirton or the District and Local Centres

*Main town centre uses are defined at Annex 2 ‘Glossary’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and includes retail, leisure, hotel and office development. The document should provide an assessment of the development’s impact on existing centres. It should take into account any recently completed developments and any outstanding permissions. It should include both quantitative and qualitative information relating to the need for the development. Retail applications in edge of centre or out of centre locations must be accompanied by evidence demonstrating that there is a need for the development and that a sequential approach to site selection has been followed.


Policy 24: The Retail Hierarchy of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Section 7

21. Statement of Community Involvement

Required for all applications where pre-application consultation has taken place with the local community

The National Planning Policy Framework advises local planning authorities to encourage

Page 187

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-space-sports-and-recreation-facilities-public-rights-of-way-and-local-green-space

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-space-sports-and-recreation-facilities-public-rights-of-way-and-local-green-space

http://row.lincolnshire.gov.uk/

27

developers to engage with the local community before submitting their planning application

The Council will encourage developers to undertake early community consultation particularly for planning proposals that may give rise to local controversy, those that are on sensitive sites or those that are significant in scale. Where pre-application community consultation takes place (which may include local public exhibitions, notices in the press and around the site, notification to local councillors and Parish Councils), a statement should be submitted to describe how, when and where consultation has taken place; a summary of the level and content of responses; and, any changes that have been made to the proposed scheme to take account of those responses. Further information/policy background:

Boston Borough Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) 2012 National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Section 4

22. Structural Survey

Required for:- Applications to convert and re-use buildings such as barn conversions or

historic assets (listed or locally listed buildings or buildings within a conservation area)

Applications which involve substantial or total demolition of listed, locally listed or other buildings within a conservation area

The structural survey should be carried out by a suitably qualified professional (such as a structural surveyor) to provide a specialist report on the condition of the building and its suitability for adaptation for the proposed new use. The report should identify any requirements for replacement or re-building of any parts of the walls, roof and foundations of the building or the need for new structural elements.

23. Summary of Application

Required for all applications which are made with supporting documents that in total exceed 100 pages in length

A summary should provide an overview of the documents submitted with the application and a description of the key impacts of the development. The summary document should be easy to read, concise and no more than 20 pages.

24. Sustainable Drainage Assessment

Required for all major applications

The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 sets out the requirement for Local Lead Flood Authority’s (LLFAs) to manage 'local' flood risk within their area. 'Local' flood risk refers to flooding or flood risk from surface water, groundwater or from ordinary watercourses. Lincolnshire County Council is the Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA).

Page 188

28

Each proposal will need to demonstrate that drainage will be handled in the most sustainable manner which usually means at source using sustainable drainage systems rather than through treatment and processing.


Policy 4: Strategic Approach to Flood Risk of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (Paragraph 163) National Planning Practice Guidance - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sustainable-drainage-systems-non-statutory-technical-standards Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) SUDS manual C753, 2015

25. Telecommunications Development Supplementary Information

Required for all planning applications for telecommunications development

The Supplementary Information should include the following:- A statement of compliance with the ICNIRP guidelines An assessment of alternative sites, including mast sharing options which have been

considered and the reasons why they have been found to be unsuitable An explanation as to why the proposed development is required, including coverage

maps where appropriate Details and outcomes of pre-application discussions


Policy 5: Meeting Physical Infrastructure and Service Needs South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Section 10

25. Tourism

Required for all applications for tourist facilities and developments

These applications should be accompanied by a Statement to demonstrate how the proposal will meet national and local plan policies and ensure that the development is satisfactorily integrated into the local and/or rural landscape. Such a Statement could include details of tourism markets and evidence of levels of demand, anticipated revenues and details of the anticipated economic impact in the locality and at a wider scale Further information/policy background:

Policy 9: Promoting a Stronger Visitor Economy of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 National Planning Policy Framework, Section 6

26. Transport Statement/Assessment and Travel Plan

Required for: All major developments

Page 189

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sustainable-drainage-systems-non-statutory-technical-standards

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sustainable-drainage-systems-non-statutory-technical-standards

29

Developments that would have significant transport implications

Paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 sets out that all developments that generate significant amounts of transport movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan and the application supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Transport Assessments are thorough assessments of the transport implications of development, and Transport Statements are a ‘lighter-touch’ evaluation to be used where this would be more proportionate to the potential impact of the development (i.e. in the case of developments with anticipated limited transport impacts). The primary purpose of a Travel Plan is to identify opportunities for the effective promotion and delivery of sustainable transport initiatives e.g. walking, cycling and public transport to reduce reliance on the car. Transport Assessments and Statements and Travel Plans should be proportionate to the size and scope of the proposed development to which they relate and build on existing information wherever possible. Agreement should be sought with the Planning Authority and the Lincolnshire Highway Authority as to what level of assessment is required and where a Transport Assessment is required, the scope of the survey and assessment work. Full details of what should be included within the above documents are available using the following link https://www.gov.uk/guidance/travel-plans-transport-assessments-and-statements

Further information/policy background: Policy 36: Vehicle and Car Parking of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Section 9 National Planning Practice Guidance - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/travel-plans-transport-assessments-and-statements

27. Tree Survey/Arboricultural Implications Assessment

Required for all developments affecting trees within or adjacent to the application site

Where there are trees and/or hedges within or adjacent to the site (including street trees) which may be directly or indirectly affected by the development or its construction (such as by service runs, hardstandings, walls or trenches for services), then a tree survey should be prepared by a suitably qualified arboriculturist. All trees and hedges should also be appropriately annotated on a topographical survey plan and a site plan. The Tree Survey and Arboricultural Implications Assessment should have regard to the requirements of BS (British Standard) 5837 (last issued, 2012). The Assessment should categorise the trees/hedges in respect of their species, age, health and condition, visual amenity and impact/recommendations. The Assessment should include a tree removals plan, tree retention plan and a tree (root zone) protection plan (which may all be shown on 1 plan). Any replanting that is proposed to compensate losses can also be shown. The plan should also include details of the type and design of protective fencing to be used and a schedule of the measures to be taken to protect trees and their root zones throughout the construction of the development. Where trees are subject to Tree Preservation Order(s), the Survey and Assessment should make reference to this.

Page 190

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/travel-plans-transport-assessments-and-statements




30

Required for:


Policy 28: The Natural Environment of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations

28. Utilities Statement and Foul Sewage Assessment (including Surface Water)

Required for: All major applications Most rural developments (including farm buildings, stables) Developments that will lead to the disposal of trade waste or foul sewage effluent Developments that create new areas of hardstanding (relates to surface water)

The detail contained within the statement should be proportionate to the scale of the development and its impacts. In summary, a statement should include the following: the availability of utility services and impact of the development on their capacity details of any infrastructure such as sub-stations, utility connections, telecommunications

equipment or upgrading of services that will be required to cater for the development in the case of hardstandings, details of how surface water will be addressed (eg through

permeable surfacing materials or soakaways


Policy 4: Approach to Flood Risk of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 National Planning Practice Guidance - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/water-supply-wastewater-and-water-quality

29. Ventilation/Extraction Details

Required for all applications for: the cooking of food (Classes A3, A4 and A5 of the Use Classes Order) Significant retail, business, office, industrial, leisure, hotel, flats in large building

or similar development where substantial ventilation and extraction equipment is required

Details of the position and design of ventilation and extraction equipment, including odour abatement measures should be shown on the submitted plans and explained fully in a statement. Given that extraction equipment often has noise implications, details of the noise generated by the equipment should also be provided. The positon, height, width and design (including colour treatment) of any flue to be installed should be shown on the proposed plans. The technical specification of all the equipment (such as the manufacturer’s details) should also be provided. Further information/policy background:

Policy 30: Pollution of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036

30. Viability Assessments

Page 191

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/water-supply-wastewater-and-water-quality

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/water-supply-wastewater-and-water-quality

31

Required for all applications where an applicant is claiming that certain infrastructure requirements are unable to be provided due to the financial marginality of a scheme.

This should be supplemental to a Planning Statement justifying why the required infrastructure requirements are unable to be provided due to the financial viability of a scheme. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, such statements will be made publicly viewable. Sufficient financial information will need to be provided to enable a full assessment to be made. The Council will seek independent appraisal of the Viability Assessment and Developers are required to pay the Council’s costs. Further information/policy background:

National Planning Policy Framework 2018 National Planning Practice Guidance https://www.gov.uk/guidance/viability Policy 5: Meeting Physical Infrastructure and Service Needs of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Policy 6: Developer Contributions of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036

Purpose of guidance This document sets out Boston Borough Council’s local requirements for planning applications. This proposed local guidance document has been the subject of a xxx week period of consultation and the guidance has been adopted for use in validating all applications received after xxx. The guidance will help applicants to understand the type and extent of the information that will be required from them. It will also ensure that the Local Planning Authority has all the information it needs to determine an application from the outset. The guidance will benefit both the applicant, by ensuring a speedy decision, and the Local Authority by helping to achieve performance targets.

Page 192

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/viability

Appendix B

Shortened Validation Checklist

for

Householders Applications

ADOPTED xxxx

Page 193

2

Introduction This document is for use by applicants and agents when submitting planning and other related applications. The checklist considers both National Requirements - these are mandatory, and Local Requirements -these are determined by the Borough Council and the submission of this information will vary depending on the nature of the proposal.

Please note that this is a shortened version of the full checklist and is for householder applications only. Please see the full checklist for all other types of application

The checklist will:

help you to understand the type and extent of information that will be required; provide greater certainty; enable us to have all the information we need in order to determine the application,

draft the planning permission and word any planning conditions required; and minimise the risk that we will have to go back to you for more information which can

result in unnecessary delays.

Submitting Applications We recommend the submission of applications electronically via the Planning Portal – www.planningportal.co.uk. Payment of application fees can also be made via the Planning Portal, by paying by cheque or over the phone by credit or debit card (01205 314305).

If you choose to submit a paper copy of your application, you will need to provide one copy of all documents and forms, unless you have already been advised that more paper copies are required.

You can help us to process your application more quickly by:

Submitting your application online and making payment electronically Including all the necessary information Avoiding the use of large file sizes (Maximum file size of 10MB) Including a schedule of the documents submitted Clearly annotating all document files accordingly Agreeing the information requirements with us prior to submission, including the

submission of additional copies of documents or CDs if required Corresponding with us by email ([email protected])

Format of Submissions

It is requested that any personal or sensitive information is removed / redacted from applications/reports etc. prior to their submission. Such information includes signatures, personal phone numbers, personal email addresses and photographs containing images of children and vulnerable adults and vehicle registration numbers.

Any information your consider should be withheld from the public register should be brought

Page 194

http://www.planningportal.co.uk/

3

to our attention.

Applications will not be invalidated if they have such information, however it might lead to a delay in its registration.

Sensitive Information 1h. Format

The Validation Process If you do not submit an application in accordance with the requirements of the checklist we are entitled to declare that there is something missing from the application and this will make it invalid. If this happens, we will set out our reasons for doing so and specify the information required in order to make the application valid. Wherever possible we will seek to do this via email and within 3 working days for a householder proposal. If you do not agree that a particular piece of information is required to accompany your application, please provide written justification with the application and this will be considered. The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (Article 12) sets out the procedure if there is disagreement regarding the information required to make an application valid. If we do not hear from you within 21 days, or the requested information is not received, your submitted application and any associated documents will be returned to you. If an apparently valid application is later found to be invalid because of a factual or legal inaccuracy or the planning fee is returned as unpaid, the original start date for processing the application will be disregarded. The time from application to decision will start again on the revised validation date. The time period from application to decision begins the day after a valid planning application and the correct fee (where a fee is payable) has been received. If the application is submitted electronically it will be treated as having been delivered at 9am on the next working day following the date of its transmission. The day a valid application is received counts as day zero. Applications will be marked with the date of receipt from their valid date. We will send a letter to you confirming the validity of the application and the start date of the statutory period for determination.

Pre-application discussions The Council encourages applicants to contact the Development Management team as early as possible and to engage in pre-application discussions. This can be beneficial in helping applicants to choose the correct type of application to make, to avoid unsuccessful applications, to improve the quality of their schemes and to ensure the correct plans and documents are submitted with their application. This can also save considerable time and avoid the need for repeat applications or appeals. The Council charges for this service but charges are proportionate to the scale of development. A pre-application form and details of charges can be found at http://www.boston.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3875 When pre-application advice is sought and given, the applicant will be expected to show how regard has been made to that advice in the formal application.

Page 195


4

A. NATIONAL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

These requirements are set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 and are relevant for applications across England and Wales.

All drawings must: Be at a recognised metric scale Show a north point Include a linear scale bar

All drawings MUST include a reference number (and highlight any revisions as

applicable) as these are referred to in planning conditions.

1. The completed standard application form

Required for all applications

The preferred way of this being submitted is electronically through the Planning Portal but emailed or paper copies will be accepted. Applicants should ensure they select the householder form. An applicant’s name and address should be completed as well as agent details where applicable. Contact details for the applicant (or agent where applicable) should include an email address. All relevant questions should be answered and if not relevant to the application, then the words ‘not applicable’ should be inserted for clarity.

2. The correct fee

Required for all applications other than works to a tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order and Listed Building Consent unless an exemption or concession applies

Where a fee is necessary it must be provided in accordance with the statutory fee scale. If you consider that no fee is necessary, you should specify the reasons for this view. If, however, no fee is required because the application is a resubmission of a previously refused or withdrawn proposal (and this exemption has not previously been sought by the applicant at any time in the past for the application site), the planning reference number of the previous application should be provided. An up-to-date schedule of fees can be viewed on the Planning Portal’s website: https://ecab.planningportal.co.uk/uploads/english_application_fees.pdf

3. Ownership Certificates and Agricultural Land Declaration

Required for all outline, full and listed building consent applications

One of the following Certificates A, B, C or D must be completed stating the ownership of the property: Certificate A: When the applicant is the sole owner; Certificate B: When person(s) other than the applicant are known to own part or all of

the application site; Certificates C and D: When not all or none of the owners of the site are known. For this purpose an ‘owner’ is anyone with a freehold interest, or leasehold interest

the unexpired term of which is not less than 7 years. Page 196

https://ecab.planningportal.co.uk/uploads/english_application_fees.pdf

5

A Part 1 notice must be sent by the applicant to any owners of the application site other than the applicant if Certificate B has been completed. It may also be required if Certificate C has been completed. A copy must be served on each of the individuals identified in the relevant certificate.

4. Location Plan


This should: Be up to date and of Ordnance Survey quality; Be at a scale of 1:1250 or 1:2500;

Show a north point; Show at least two named roads; Show surrounding buildings which are named or numbered; Clearly identify the application site with a red edge which should include all the land

required to carry out the proposed development (such as land required for access to the site from a public highway);

Show any other land in the control or ownership of the applicant which is close to or adjacent to the application site with a blue edge; and

Show the exact location of the application site.

5. Site Plan/Block Plan


This should: Be at a scale of 1:500 or 1:200; Show the direction of North; Show the proposed development in relation to the site boundaries and other existing

buildings and features on the site; and Include written/annotated dimensions between new buildings and site boundaries.

It should also include the following, unless these would not influence or be affected by the proposed development: All the buildings, roads and footpaths on land adjoining the site including access

arrangements; All public rights of way crossing or adjoining the site; The position of all trees on the site, and those on adjacent land that could influence or

be affected by the development; The extent and type of any hard surfacing; and

Boundary treatment including walls or fencing where this is proposed.

Page 197

6 6

B. LOCAL REQUIREMENTS

The list below captures the majority of types of documents and additional information that will be necessary to be prepared and submitted with a householder planning application. Advice at the pre-application stage should be sought for clarification of these requirements.

PLANS

1. Existing and Proposed Floor Plans

Required for all householder applications where new floorspace is proposed

These should: Be drawn to a recognised metric scale, preferably 1:50 or 1:100; Include written/annotated external dimensions of new buildings/extensions; Explain the proposal in detail; Clearly show any existing walls or buildings to be demolished; and Show the development in context with any adjacent buildings (including property

numbers where applicable).

2. Existing and Proposed Elevations

Required for all householder applications where:

New elevations are proposed; or Existing elevations are altered

These should: Be drawn to a recognised metric scale, preferably 1:50 or 1:100; Include written/annotated external dimensions of new buildings/extensions Explain the proposal in detail; Show details of the existing building and those for the proposed development; Show all sides of the property (including any blank elevations) and indicate where

possible the building materials and the style, materials and finish of windows and doors; Correspond exactly with the plan drawings; and Clearly show the relationship with any adjoining buildings or buildings in close proximity

and provide details of the positions of any window or door openings on each building.

3. Existing and proposed site sections and finished floor and site levels

Required for householder applications:

Where a proposal involves a change in ground levels – drawings should be submitted to show both existing and finished site and floor levels, or

On sloping sites – information is required concerning alterations to levels, the way in which a proposal sits within the site and in particular the relative levels between

Page 198

7

existing and proposed land and buildings

These should: Be drawn to a recognised metric scale, preferably at 1:50 or 1:100; Show a cross section through the proposed building(s); and Demonstrate how the proposed building(s) relates to existing site levels and to

neighbouring development.

4. Roof plans

Required for householder applications where new roof details are proposed

These should: Be drawn to a recognised metric scale, preferably at 1:50 or 1:100; and Include details of roofing materials, vents etc.

2l Basements or Excavations

STATEMENTS AND REPORTS

1. Biodiversity Survey and Report

Required for all developments which may impact on biodiversity and ecological

networks or affect protected species

Biodiversity and ecological networks includes: European Sites of International Importance: RAMSAR, Protection Area (SPA) and

Special Area of Conservation (SAC): 1 of each are within the Borough UK Sites of National Importance: Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI): 1 is within

the Borough National Nature Reserves (NNR) : there is 1 within the Borough and 5 within 15km of

the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan area RSPB managed/owned sites: there are 2 within the Borough Local Wildlife Sites

All major housing sites within 10km of The Wash are required to be submitted with a Habitats Regulation Assessment in accordance with Policy 28 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036. Further information regarding information required is detailed below under ‘Habitats Regulation Assessment. Proposals which may affect any of the other designated biodiversity and ecological networks described above which might affect the flora, fauna, geology or habitat of these areas will require an up to date biodiversity survey/ecological assessment, carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist. An survey and report (Phase 1 Habit Survey) will also be required for proposals that may affect the habitat of protected species or priority species. This is likely to affect applications for the following:- Barn conversions Demolition of buildings Changes of use or alterations to buildings that affect roof spaces

Page 199

8

A biodiversity survey and report (Phase 1 Habit Survey) should include the following information: details about the existing biodiversity interests and protected species found on

the development site (including any possible impacts that the new development may have on them)

Details of any proposed measures to prevent mitigate or compensate for the possible impacts of the proposed development.

Where necessary, an appropriate ecological survey (e.g. walkover, Phase 1 Habitat Survey, National Vegetation Classification or protected species) should include details of any statutory or non-statutory sites, other existing biodiversity interests and protected species or potential for them found on the development site. These will include any significant wildlife habitats or features and any species or potential for them protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended by 2017 Regulations) or the Protection of Badgers Act

1992. Details of any proposed measures necessary to prevent, mitigate or compensate for the possible impacts of the proposed development on both habitats and species will also be required. These may need to include details for long term maintenance and management. This applies to those types of development requiring an EIA and an Environmental Statement as well as to those where any locally valuable habitats or protected species is involved. Without appropriate surveys, when required, the application may be refused planning permission for insufficient information. Further information/policy background:

Policy 28: The Natural Environment of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Section 15 Further advice may be found in: Planning Practice Guidance – https://www.gov.uk/guidance/natural-environment Further guidance and the Protected Species Trigger List may be found in Association of Local Government Ecologists (ALGE) document on Validation of Planning Applications – Template for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation,

http://www.alge.org.uk/publications/index.php; and Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2010:2006. Planning to halt the loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity Conservation standards for planning in the UK. Code of Practice. British Standards Institute.

2. Flood Risk Assessment

Required for all developments within Flood Zones 2 and 3, for developments with an

application site of 1 hectare or more in Flood Zone 1 and for other developments that

may be affected by specific localised flooding issues or contribute to flooding

problems within or outside the application site

A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) should: Assess the risks from all forms of flooding to and from the development Demonstrate how those flood risks will be managed or mitigated Identify opportunities to reduce the probability and consequences of flooding Address the requirement for safe access to and from the development in areas at risk

Page 200

9

of flooding


Policy 4: Strategic Approach to Flood Risk of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 The National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Section 14 National Planning Practice Guidance - mhttps://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change South East Lincolnshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (March 2017) - http://www.southeastlincslocalplan.org/water/

3. Heritage Assessment

Required for applications to: Alter, demolish, extend a listed building or a building within a conservation area Development that may affect the setting of a listed building or conservation area Works that may affect a Scheduled Ancient Monument or its setting Works to a historic park or garden Works affecting a known or suspected archaeological site

This is required for heritage assets which includes Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Archaeological sites, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks/Gardens of Special Historic Interest and Non-designated heritage assets that are of local historic, architectural or cultural value including locally listed buildings identified by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). Non-designated heritage assets can be identified by the LPA during its consideration of an application. In these circumstances, the applicant would be requested to submit a Heritage Statement during the course of the application.

The degree of detail provided in the Assessment should be proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset(s) that may be affected and the works proposed. For example, works to listed buildings or demolition of a building/structure in a conservation area will require greater detail than for example, the replacement of a boundary wall in a conservation area. Paragraph 187 of the NPPF states that as a minimum, the relevant historic environment record, held by Lincolnshire County Council, should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary.

A Heritage Assessment should include:- An assessment of significance of the heritage asset including any contribution made to

its setting. The assessment should identify and describe all the heritage assets that may be affected by the proposed development and assess their heritage significance, and in particular, assess the significance of those parts of the building/site affected by the proposed works. The description of the asset(s) should normally go beyond simply quoting published material such as a list description or Historic Environment Record (HER) entry, because it should enable the reader to understand the potential impact of the proposals on the significance. Well captioned photographs and other illustrations are very useful as a substitute for text and can help to keep a statement concise and to the point.

A clear description of the proposed development. In particular, details of those aspects

of the work that are likely to affect the significance of the heritage asset(s) or their setting. Where appropriate, this could include a schedule, method statement and/or

Page 201

http://www.southeastlincslocalplan.org/water/

10

specification of works.

An assessment of the impacts of the proposals on the significance of the heritage asset

and/or its setting

Justification for the proposed works and any mitigation measures. Explain why the

proposed works are desirable or necessary and what steps have been taken to avoid, minimise or mitigate any harm to the significance of the heritage asset. If the works include any elements which result in harm to heritage, the assessment provides an opportunity to explain what issues you consider weigh in favour of the proposal(s).

A Heritage Statement can form part of a Design and Access Statement. Further information/policy background:

Policy 29: The Historic Environment of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Various Conservation Area Appraisals Lincolnshire Historic Environment Record - https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/residents/environment-and-planning/conservation/historic-environment-record/36930.article

11. Landscaping Scheme

Required for the following (apart from outline applications where landscaping has been accepted as a reserved matter): New dwellings Institutional, training, educational or residential accommodation Industrial, commercial, office, retail or leisure development New car parks Large extensions to existing premises Works by statutory undertakers

where existing and proposed landscaping would contribute to the acceptability of the proposed scheme

A landscaping scheme should identify the main areas of hard and soft landscaping proposals on a site layout, indicating existing and proposed planting. For major applications or where landscaping is likely to be of material importance to the proposal, a more detailed landscaping scheme should be provided which should include the following:

A detailed plan of the hard and soft landscaping proposals Plant species, planting heights, planting densities, seeding mixes Details of how existing planting will be protected during construction should also be

provided Methods of cultivation and plant establishment, including staking and mulching Details of levels, paving treatment and materials Details of long-term maintenance and landscape management



Page 202



11

16. Parking and Access Arrangements

Required for all applications:- which will generate traffic or increase demand for parking will require servicing will result in the loss of existing parking or servicing provision

Parking for the appropriate type, size and number of cars and other vehicles, and servicing to cater for deliveries, refuse vehicles etc., and turning areas, should be provided on a detailed site layout, including swept paths where necessary. This shall demonstrate that the site is capable of being serviced by the largest vehicles that will visit the site and/or allows vehicles to enter/leave in forward gear. Where parking provision would not comply with the Council’s car parking standards, any mitigation measures and impacts to on-street parking should be assessed. Details of secure motorcycle and cycle parking should be included within the submitted plans. Electric charging points are being sought for both residential and non-residential development in order to ensure that developments take account of changes in vehicle technology and also to meet other plan objectives in reducing carbon emissions. The number, location and details of electric charging facilities should be explained in a statement and indicated on a proposed car parking layout.


Policy 36: Vehicle and Cycle Parking of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036

18. Planning Statement

Required if you consider your application requires justification to support the proposal

This should provide an explanation and justification for the proposals in the context of relevant national and local plan policies. A suitable statement may include: An assessment of the site and its context A description of the proposed development An assessment of the relevant planning policy and an appraisal of how the proposal

accords with that policy context Any public benefits that might arise from the development.

21. Statement of Community Involvement

Required for all applications where pre-application consultation has taken place with the local community

The National Planning Policy Framework advises local planning authorities to encourage developers to engage with the local community before submitting their planning application

The Council will encourage developers to undertake early community consultation particularly for planning proposals that may give rise to local controversy, those that are on sensitive sites or those that are significant in scale. Where pre-application community Page 203

12

consultation takes place (which may include local public exhibitions, notices in the press and around the site, notification to local councillors and Parish Councils), a statement should be submitted to describe how, when and where consultation has taken place; a summary of the level and content of responses; and, any changes that have been made to the proposed scheme to take account of those responses. Further information/policy background:

Boston Borough Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) 2012 National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Section 4

27. Tree Survey/Arboricultural Implications Assessment

Required for all developments affecting trees within or adjacent to the application site

Where there are trees and/or hedges within or adjacent to the site (including street trees) which may be directly or indirectly affected by the development or its construction (such as by service runs, hardstandings, walls or trenches for services), then a tree survey should be prepared by a suitably qualified arboriculturist. All trees and hedges should also be appropriately annotated on a topographical survey plan and a site plan. The Tree Survey and Arboricultural Implications Assessment should have regard to the requirements of BS (British Standard) 5837 (last issued, 2012). The Assessment should categorise the trees/hedges in respect of their species, age, health and condition, visual amenity and impact/recommendations. The Assessment should include a tree removals plan, tree retention plan and a tree (root zone) protection plan (which may all be shown on 1 plan). Any replanting that is proposed to compensate losses can also be shown. The plan should also include details of the type and design of protective fencing to be used and a schedule of the measures to be taken to protect trees and their root zones throughout the construction of the development. Where trees are subject to Tree Preservation Order(s), the Survey and Assessment should make reference to this.


Policy 28: The Natural Environment of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations

Purpose of guidance

This document sets out Boston Borough Council’s local requirements for householder planning applications. This proposed local guidance document has been the subject of a xxx week period of consultation and the guidance has been adopted for use in validating all applications received after xxx. The guidance will help applicants to understand the type and extent of the information that will be required from them. It will also ensure that the Local Planning Authority has all the information it needs to determine an application from the outset. The guidance will benefit both the applicant, by ensuring a speedy decision, and the Local Authority by helping to achieve performance targets.

Page 204

BOSTON BOROUGH COUNCILMunicipal Buildings, West Street, Boston, Lincs, PE21 8QR

Tel: 01205 314305 Email: [email protected]

DELEGATED DECISION LIST

Full details of Planning Applications and Decisions can be viewed online at www.boston.gov.uk/pa

Location DecisionApplicant Name

DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number

Development Description

B/16/0499/NMA 03/09/2018LandauStuartThomsett

ApprovedNon-materialAmendment

Land adjacent to 21Horseshoe Lane, Kirton,Boston, Lincolnshire, PE201LJ

Non material amendment toplanning approvalB/16/0499 to amendcondition 8 (Surface waterdrainage)

Kirton Parish Council

B/18/0283 03/09/2018Epton Favourable withconditions

StuartThomsett

Golden Ball Cottage,Fenhouses Lane,Swineshead, Boston, PE203HE

Erection of two storeydwelling & detached singlestorey triple garage &garden store, includingtemporary siting of staticcaravan during constructionperiod, following demolitionof existing dwelling

Swineshead ParishCouncil

Page 1 Of 31 01/10/2018Development Manager - Lisa Hughes

Page 205

Agenda Item

11


http://www.boston.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6208&ApplicationNumber=B/16/0499/NMA



DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


B/16/0499/CD1 04/09/2018Landau ConditionDischarge

StuartThomsett

Land adjacent to 21Horseshoe Lane, Kirton,Boston, Lincolnshire, PE201LJ

Application to have detailsapproved relating tocondition 3 (ConstructionManagement Plan), 9(Finished Floor Levels) and10 (Ecology) of planningpermission B/16/0499(Erection of six detacheddwellings with associatedgarages and access)



StuartThomsett

Land on the south side ofHorseshoe Lane, Kirton,Boston, PE20 1LJ

Application to have detailsapproved relating tocondition 7 (Materials) ofplanning permissionB/15/0107 (Erection of eightdetached and semidetached dwellingsincluding new individual andshared accesses fromHorseshoe Lane (inaccordance with revisedproposals received 21 May2015))


StuartThomsett

Land adjacent to 21Horseshoe Lane, Kirton,Boston, Lincolnshire, PE20


Page 206

http://www.boston.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6208&ApplicationNumber=B/16/0499/CD1




DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


1LJApplication to have detailsapproved relating tocondition 4 (Materials) ofplanning permissionB/16/0499 (Erection of sixdetached dwellings withassociated garages andaccess)


StuartThomsett


Application to have detailsapproved relating tocondition 9 (Finished FloorLevels) and 10 (Ecology) ofplanning permissionB/15/0107 (Erection of eightdetached and semidetached dwellingsincluding new individual andshared accesses fromHorseshoe Lane (inaccordance with revisedproposals received 21 May2015))


B/15/0107/CD3 04/09/2018ConditionDischarge

StuartThomsett

GeminiProperties


Application to have detailsapproved relating tocondition 4 (Landscaping)


Page 207




DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


of planning permissionB/15/0107 (Erection of eightdetached and semidetached dwellingsincluding new individual andshared accesses fromHorseshoe Lane (inaccordance with revisedproposals received 21 May2015))


B/16/0499/CD3 04/09/2018GeminiProperties

ConditionDischarge

Land off Horseshoe Lane,Kirton, Boston, PE20 1LJ

StuartThomsett

Application to have detailsapproved relating tocondition 6 (Landscaping)of planning permissionB/16/0499 (Erection of sixdetached dwellings withassociated garages andaccess)



ConditionDischarge


StuartThomsett

Application to have detailsapproved relating tocondition 5 (Boundary Wallsand Fences) of planningpermission B/16/0499(Erection of six detacheddwellings with associatedgarages and access)


Page 208




DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number




StuartThomsett

GeminiProperties


Application to have detailsapproved relating tocondition 6 (Boundary Wallsand Fences) of planningpermission B/15/0107(Erection of eight detachedand semi detacheddwellings including newindividual and sharedaccesses from HorseshoeLane (in accordance withrevised proposals received21 May 2015))



StuartThomsett

GeminiProperties

Land on the south side ofHorseshoe Lane, Kirton,PE20 1LJ

Application to have detailsapproved relating tocondition 8 (Surface waterdrainage) of planningpermission B/15/0107(Erection of eight detachedand semi detacheddwellings including newindividual and sharedaccesses from HorseshoeLane (in accordance withrevised proposals received21 May 2015))


Page 209




DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number




ConditionDischarge


StuartThomsett

Application to have detailsapproved relating tocondition 8 (Surface waterdraining) of planningpermission B/16/0499(Erection of six detacheddwellings with associatedgarages and access)


StuartThomsett

Bridge HouseIndependentSchool

Site opposite Merriman'sLounge and Restaurant(land adjacent to LarringtonTrailers), Great Fen Road,Wyberton Fen, Boston,PE21 7PB

Application to have detailsapproved relating tocondition 3 (New Footway)and 8 (Surface WaterDrainage) of planningpermission B/17/0470(Erection of newindependent behavioralschool, forming of newclassrooms, workshops,admin offices, staff rooms,social spaces, residentialblock, external car parkingand service space)

Wyberton Parish Council

B/18/0294 05/09/2018Kirk Prior ApprovalGiven

StuartThomsett

The Old Barn, Bye Lane,Brothertoft, Boston,


Page 210





DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


Lincolnshire, PE20 3SEApplication for PriorApproval for change of useof existing barn toresidential dwelling (ClassC3)

Brothertoft ParishCouncil

B/18/0214 05/09/2018Thompson Favourable withconditions

StuartThomsett

Land adjacent toSouthview, Boston Road,Swineshead, Boston, Lincs,PE20 3HB

Approval of reservedmatters (scale, access,landscaping andappearance) followingoutline approval B/15/0137(Outline planningpermission including layoutfor two lodges to be usedsolely by anglers usingadjacent lake)


B/18/0267 05/09/2018Brewitt Unfavourabledecision

6A Priory Road, Fishtoft,Boston, PE21 0RA

TrevorThompson

Erection of 1 no. detachedtwo storey dormer styleresidential dwelling

Fishtoft Parish Council

B/18/0293 05/09/2018Unfavourabledecision

TrevorThompson

Ray SellarsQuality Homes

Land rear of 7 WillingtonRoad, Kirton, Boston, PE20


Page 211





DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


1EHConstruction of a 1bedroom starter home(Class C3) followingdemolition of a buildersstorage shed


B/18/0172 06/09/2018John Taylor Flaherty Favourable withconditions

Rear of 51 Sydney Street,Boston, PE21 8NZ

Erection of 2 bed roomedtwo storey detacheddwellinghouse withinexisting rear garden of 51Sydney Street frontingBartol Crescent andassociated vehicular accessand parking

Boston Town AreaCommittee

B/18/0118 07/09/2018Lisa Hughes Stephens Favourable withconditions

Land adjacent toStoneleigh, SuttertonDrove, Amber Hill, Boston,Lincolnshire, PE20 3RQ

Outline application with allmatters relating to access,layout, scale, appearanceand landscaping reservedfor the erection of twobungalows

Amber Hill ParishCouncil

B/18/0331 07/09/2018Lisa Hughes Prior Approval


Page 212





DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


GivenThe Trusteesof the Late J RSmith

The Barn, Fen Road,Frampton West, Boston,PE20 1SD

Resubmission of B/18/0236for Prior Approval for thechange of use fromagricultural building toresidential dwelling (ClassC3)

Frampton Parish Council

B/18/0333 07/09/2018Kirsty Harte Hern Favourable withconditions

Green Acres, Drury Lane,Bicker, Boston, PE20 3EB

Erection of part two storey,part single storey extensionto rear and single storeyextension to side

Bicker Parish Council

B/17/0282/NMA 10/09/2018DayStuartThomsett


Drayton House, GoldenGrove, Swineshead,Boston, PE20 3JY

Application under s96A fora non material amendmentto approval B/17/0282(Proposed erection of atimber stable blockcomprising 4 no stables, 2no tack rooms, hay storeand wash area) to includeconcrete washing area


B/18/0297 11/09/2018De-Benedictis Favourable withconditions

StuartThomsett

Morley House, Morley Lane,Bicker, Boston,


Page 213





DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


Lincolnshire, PE20 3DPApplication under s.73a forthe removal of Condition 1attached to PlanningPermission B/15/0228 inorder to continue to use thesite for heavy plant storageand joinery/manufacturingon a permanent basis


B/18/0239 11/09/2018Simpson Favourable withconditions

124 Tattershall Road,Boston, PE21 9LR

StuartThomsett

Erection of 8.5m ShortWave Amateur Radio Mastand 3 Aerials


B/18/0292 11/09/2018Tilson Favourable withconditions

StuartThomsett

Blackfriars Art Centre, 11Spain Lane, Boston, PE216HP

Listed Building Consent forinternal alterations tofacilitate the installation of aDisability Discrimination Act(DDA) compliant lift


B/18/0069 11/09/2018Lisa Hughes Flemington Favourable withconditions

Land off Meadow Way, OldLeake, Lincolnshire

Application under s73 forthe variation of condition 20(fences) attached toplanning permission


Page 214





DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


B/16/0317 (Proposederection of 30 affordabledwellings, associatedaccess roads, open spacesand attenuation pond) -Erection of additional1200mm close boardedfence to rear gardens ofplots 23-30

Old Leake ParishCouncil


TrevorThompson

ChestnutHomes Ltd

Land either side of the A16,south of Tytton Lane East,Boston

Application to haveapproved details relating tocondition 9 (Pedestrian andvehicular access details) ofplanning permissionB/14/0165 for mixeddevelopment on land knownas The Quadrant


B/18/0257 12/09/2018Asda StoresLtd

Favourable withconditions

ASDA Superstore, SleafordRoad, Boston, PE21 8EH

StuartThomsett

Relocation of hand carwash with canopy withinexisting car park


B/18/0319 12/09/2018Claydon Prior Approval


Page 215





DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


GivenStuartThomsett

Dial House Barn, TimmsDrove, Lowgrounds,Swineshead, Boston, PE203PG

Application for PriorApproval for change of useof existing barn toresidential (Class C3)


B/18/0289 14/09/2018John Taylor Favourable withconditions

BeningtonCommunityHeritage Trust

All Saints' Church, MainRoad, Benington, Boston,PE22 0BT

Listed Building Consent forexternal alterations tofacilitate the installation ofservice penetrations to thenorth and south aisle roofand on the north and southaisle west elevation, andthe provision of additionaldownpipes to the north andsouth elevations of thechancel

Benington ParishCouncil


BeningtonCommunityHeritage Trust

All Saints' Church, MainRoad, Benington, Boston,PE22 0BT

Installation of servicepenetrations to the northand south aisle roof and onthe north and south aislewest elevation, and theprovision of additionaldownpipes to the north andsouth elevations of the


Page 216




DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


chancel

Benington ParishCouncil

B/17/0340 14/09/2018Lisa Hughes Favourable withconditions

National GridViking LinkLimited

Land off Vicarage Drove,Bicker Fen, Boston, PE203BN

Installation of undergroundhigh voltage Direct Currentcables for the Viking LinkInterconnector projectbetween proposed landfallat Boygrift in East Lindseyto a proposed converterstation at North Ing Drove inSouth Holland; installationof underground alternatingcurrent cables from theconverter station to theexisting Bicker Fen 400 kVNGET Substation; as wellas permanent access roadto converter station,temporary facilities requiredduring construction such ascompounds and worksareas are included withinBoston Borough. (Thisapplication is forEnvironmental ImpactAssessment developmentby virtue of the Town andCountry Planning(Environmental Impact


Page 217



DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


Assessment) Regulation2017





Installation of undergroundhigh voltage Direct Currentcables for the Viking LinkInterconnector projectbetween proposed landfallat Boygrift in East Lindseyto a proposed converterstation at North Ing Drove inSouth Holland; installationof underground alternatingcurrent cables from theconverter station to theexisting Bicker Fen 400 kVNGET Substation; as wellas permanent access roadto converter station,temporary facilities requiredduring construction such ascompounds and worksareas are included withinBoston Borough. (Thisapplication is forEnvironmental ImpactAssessment developmentby virtue of the Town andCountry Planning


Page 218



DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


(Environmental ImpactAssessment) Regulation2017





Installation of undergroundhigh voltage Direct Currentcables for the Viking LinkInterconnector projectbetween proposed landfallat Boygrift in East Lindseyto a proposed converterstation at North Ing Drove inSouth Holland; installationof underground alternatingcurrent cables from theconverter station to theexisting Bicker Fen 400 kVNGET Substation; as wellas permanent access roadto converter station,temporary facilities requiredduring construction such ascompounds and worksareas are included withinBoston Borough. (Thisapplication is forEnvironmental ImpactAssessment developmentby virtue of the Town andCountry Planning


Page 219



DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


(Environmental ImpactAssessment) Regulation2017





Installation of undergroundhigh voltage Direct Currentcables for the Viking LinkInterconnector projectbetween proposed landfallat Boygrift in East Lindseyto a proposed converterstation at North Ing Drove inSouth Holland; installationof underground alternatingcurrent cables from theconverter station to theexisting Bicker Fen 400 kVNGET Substation; as wellas permanent access roadto converter station,temporary facilities requiredduring construction such ascompounds and worksareas are included withinBoston Borough. (Thisapplication is forEnvironmental ImpactAssessment developmentby virtue of the Town and


Page 220



DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


Country Planning(Environmental ImpactAssessment) Regulation2017


B/17/0456/NMA 14/09/2018Kirsty Harte Wyeplants Ltd ApprovedNon-materialAmendment

Blackjack Nursery,Donington Road,Swineshead, Boston, PE203HL

Application under s96A fora non material amendmentto approval B/17/0456(Erection of newglasshouse with associatedirrigation tanks and stormwater attenuation lagoons)to subsitute proposedglasshouse for polytunnels


B/18/0336 14/09/2018Kirsty Harte Bateman Favourable withconditions

67 Park Avenue, Sutterton,Boston, PE20 2JP

Erection of two storey sideextension, single storey rearextension, single storeyfront extension, and baywindow on front elevation

Sutterton Parish Council

B/18/0318 14/09/2018Kirsty Harte Valecoast Ltd Favourable withconditions

Pygott & Crone, 24 WideBargate, Boston, PE21 6RX

Change of use of part ofexisting building from officespace (Class A2) to 5residential flats (Class C3)


Page 221





DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number



B/18/0250 17/09/2018Kirsty Harte Mountford Favourable withconditions

Beatty House, ChurchRoad, Freiston, Boston,PE22 0LA

Erection of detached brickstore and garage, includingdemolition of existingoutbuilding

Freiston Parish Council

B/18/0304 17/09/2018Kirsty Harte Swain Favourable withconditions

26 Wyberton West Road,Boston, PE21 7JJ

Erection of timber fence to aheight of 1.8 metres to frontboundary and side(adjacent to 24 WybertonWest Road)


B/18/0317 17/09/2018Kirsty Harte Valecoast Ltd Favourable withconditions

Pygott & Crone, 24 WideBargate, Boston, PE21 6RX

Listed Building Consent forinternal and externalalterations to facilitate thepart change of use of officespace to residentialaccommodation (Class C3)


B/18/0368 17/09/2018Bramley Favourable withconditions

StuartThomsett

32 King Johns Road,Swineshead, Boston, PE20


Page 222






DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


3NRApplication for works totrees subject to TPO(Swineshead No. 7) toinclude:

T1 False Acacia - Fell andreplace with Whitebeam


B/18/0374 17/09/201836 South Terrace, Boston,PE21 6BA

StuartThomsett

WaterlooHousingGroup Ltd

FavourablePlanningdecision

Application under s211 forworks to trees in aconservation area toinclude:

T1 & T2 Cherry - Pruneback branches by 2m


B/18/0375 17/09/2018StuartThomsett



Land to the rear of 11-24South Terrace, Boston,PE21 6BA


T1 - (unknown deadspecimen) FellT2 Cherry - Fell and replacewith light standard prunus


Page 223




DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


T3, T4 & T5 Yew - Pruneback branches by 2mT6 Sycamore - Prune backbranches by 2m



Graves ParkSocial Club


Graves Park, SkeldykeRoad, Kirton, Boston, PE201LR

Application for works totrees subject to TPO (Kirtonand Frampton No.1) toinclude:

- Reduce crown spread by2-3m on following trees:Silver Birch (T122 & T133),Lime (T125, T129, T134 &T154), Sycamore (T128,T130, T135, T138, T144,T146, T152, T153, T157,T158 & T160), CopperBeech (T131), HorseChestnut (T132, T155 &T159) & Beech (T156)- Reduce crown spread by4m on following trees:Sycamore (T123 & T124)- Raise crown on all trees to5m



Page 224



DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


B/18/0379 17/09/2018LonghurstGroup

The Elms, 53 SleafordRoad, PE21 8EX

StuartThomsett


Application for works totrees subject to TPO(Boston No. 4) to include:

T5 - Atlantic Cedar - reducebranches back to path edgewhich overhang roof ofmain building, remove 1branch back to main stem,reduce branches back toedge of wall which aregrowing towardsconservatory, remove deadwood


The CountyHall Hotel Ltd

Former County Hall, ChurchClose, Boston, Lincolnshire,PE21 6NA

Change of use to hotel (31bedrooms), includinglicensed bar and restaurantat ground floor


B/18/0326 17/09/2018NeilErection of a single storeyrear extension

StuartThomsett


174 Wyberton Low Road,Boston, Lincolnshire, PE217SE



Page 225





DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number




WoodlandsCourt CareHome

Woodlands Court CareHome, Boston Road, Kirton,Boston, PE20 1DS

Application for works totrees subject to TPO (KirtonNo 3) to include:

T1, T2 & T3 - Lime Treescrown lift of canopies to 6mabove ground level, cleanout central crowns, severingclimbing ivy, and reductionof lateral branches by 2-3m


B/18/0363 17/09/201824 Bath Gardens, Boston,PE21 6BY

StuartThomsett




- Fell Sycamore


B/18/0308 17/09/2018RateErection of single storeydetached double garage

StuartThomsett


Eastbourne House,Wyberton West Road,Boston, PE21 7LG


B/18/0251 17/09/2018Goraniya Favourable withconditions

StuartThomsett

One Stop Shop, 47 LondonRoad, Kirton, Boston, PE20


Page 226






DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


1JBChange of use of existingstore area into hot foodtakeaway (Class A5) andrelocation of ATM


B/18/0269 17/09/2018Warner Favourable withconditions

StuartThomsett

6 Barley Sheaf Court,Holland Fen, Lincoln, LN44QH

Construction of detached 3bay two storey carport withhome office / gym at firstfloor


B/18/0194 19/09/2018Johnson Favourable withconditions

StuartThomsett

Dovecote Farm, SuttertonDrove, Amber Hill, Boston,PE20 3RF

Erection of cladding on anexisting agricultural buildingto house agriculturalvehicles and to store animalfeed


B/18/0153 19/09/2018Johnson Favourable withconditions

StuartThomsett

Dovecote Farm, SuttertonDrove, Amber Hill, Boston,PE20 3RF

Change of use fromagricultural land toresidential curtilage



Page 227





DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


B/18/0182 19/09/2018Coupland Favourable withconditions

StuartThomsett

The Mallard, WestwoodLakes, Five House Lane,Boston, Wyberton, PE217JA

Retention of single storeybuilding to form ancillarymultifunctional uses withassociated bar,seating/lounge,delicatessen seating area,plant rooms, wcs andcommunal bed & breakfastroom accommodating up to6 people with two showersand external seating area


B/18/0226 19/09/2018Fountain Favourable withconditions

TrevorThompson

Leyland, 322A WillingtonRoad, Kirton End, Boston,PE20 1NR

Outline planning applicationto erect single dwellinghouse and paddock withdetails of access, with allother matters relating toappearance, landscaping,layout and scale reserved


B/18/0092 19/09/2018Unfavourabledecision

TrevorThompson

LincolnshireCountyCouncil

Land to the north of WigtoftRoad, Sutterton, Boston,PE20 2EQ

Outline application withsome matters reserved(layout, scale, appearanceand landscaping reservedfor later approval) for theerection of up to 96 no.dwellings, public openspace, attenuation pond,


Page 228





DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


and associatedinfrastructure (access onlyto be considered)


B/18/0296 19/09/2018Nuttgens Favourable withconditions

TrevorThompson

Seven Acres, SkipmarshLane, Old Leake, Boston,PE22 9LR

Erection of side extensionto existing stables,detached timber hay barn,access road, and retentionof static caravan fornon-residential use


B/18/0300 19/09/2018Dowse Favourable withconditions

TrevorThompson

Land adjacent to Excessive,Homers Lane, Freiston,Boston, PE22 0PA

Outline planning applicationfor the construction of two 4bedroom dwellingsincluding change of use ofthe existing land fromagricultural to residential(Class C3) with all mattersreserved

Freiston Parish Council

B/17/0533 19/09/2018Lisa Hughes Dickings Unfavourabledecision

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

Outline application with allmatters (layout, scale,appearance, access andlandscaping) reserved forthe demolition of


Page 229





DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


outbuildings and theconstruction of up to 6no.dwellings



LarkfleetHomes

Land at Punchbowl Lane,Boston, PE21 8HU

Application for approval ofreserved matters(landscaping) followingoutline approval B/15/0343for up to 100 dwellings



TrevorThompson

De MontfortHousingSociety

Land at BroadfieldLane/Grayling Way, Boston,PE21 8BQ

Application to have detailsapproved relating toconditions 6 (Landscaping)and 7 (Surface WaterDrainage) of planningpermission B/17/0519(Application for approval ofreserved matters for Phase3 of residential developmentcomprising of 33 no.dwellings including access,appearance, landscaping,layout and scale), andpartially approved relatingto conditions 7 (LandInvestigation Report), 12


Page 230




DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


(Drainage), 13(Landscaping) and 22(Archaeological work) ofplanning permissionB/13/0037 (Outlineapplication for residentialdevelopment)


B/18/0353 20/09/2018C/O Agent Prior ApprovalNot Required

149 Willoughby Road,Boston, PE21 9HR

RachaelVamplew

Application for priornotification for a proposedsingle storey rear extension8m (L) x 6.075m (W) with maximum height of 2.9m


B/17/0520/CD1 21/09/2018John Taylor TR Property ConditionDischarge

Land off Enterprise Way,Boston, PE21 7TW

Application to have detailsapproved relating tocondition 3 (Road Gullies),4 (Surface Water DrainageScheme), 6 (Materials) and9 (Walls and Fences) ofplanning permissionB/17/0520 (Proposed mixeduse commercialdevelopment (Industrial -B1, B8, Leisure - D2,Cafe/Restaurant - A3 andoffices - A2) including


Page 231




DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


associated access, parkingand landscaping)


B/18/0306 21/09/2018Kirsty Harte Reynolds Favourable withconditions

34 Hessle Avenue, Boston,PE21 8DA

Erection of single storeyside extension to form newgarage and playroom andremoval of existing garage


B/18/0327 21/09/2018Hickman Favourable withconditions

StuartThomsett

Windrush, Green Lane,Sutterton, Boston,Lincolnshire, PE20 2EA

Replace existing 1m (4ft)fence with 1.83m (6ft) fenceadjacent to Post OfficeLane


B/18/0342 21/09/2018Cheer Favourable withconditions

StuartThomsett

Burton House Farm, NiddsLane, Kirton, Boston, PE201LZ

Change of use to convertexisting barn to two storeyholiday cottage


B/18/0311 21/09/2018Budge Favourable withconditions

170 Wyberton Low Road,Boston, PE21 7SE

StuartThomsett

Erection of single storeyrear extension



Page 232






DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


B/13/0351/NMA2 27/09/2018JacksonStuartThomsett


Boston Pioneers FreeSchool Academy, FydellCrescent, Boston, PE218SS

Application under S.96A fora non-material amendmentto application B/13/0351(Demolition of the formerFord garage showroom,service and workshopbuildings and theconstruction of a primaryschool (420 places),including associatedexternal works, boundarytreatments, parking andaccess) to replace thecurrent cladding system


B/18/0277 27/09/2018Watts Unfavourabledecision

5, Norfolk Street, Boston,PE21 6PN

StuartThomsett

Application for certificate oflawfulness to use house asHMO


B/18/0341 27/09/2018LowisKirsty Harte Favourable withconditions

Erection of first floor sideextension

11 Church Road,Butterwick, Boston, PE220HT

Butterwick ParishCouncil


Page 233

http://www.boston.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6208&ApplicationNumber=B/13/0351/NMA2




DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


B/18/0335 27/09/2018Kirsty Harte Favourable withconditions

JDSP DentalLimited

30 Market Place, Boston,PE21 6EH

Change of use fromFinancial Services (ClassA2) to Dental Surgery(Class D1)


B/16/0499/NMA3 27/09/2018Gelder GroupStuartThomsett



Application under s96a for anon material amendment toapproval B/16/0499(Erection of six detacheddwellings with associatedgarages and access) tosubsitute roof tiles forMockBond Mini Stonewold,stone for feature windowcills, and feature brickworkpanels to match facingbrickwork


B/15/0107/NMA3 27/09/2018Gelder GroupStuartThomsett



Application under s96a for anon material amendment toapproval B/15/0107(Erection of eight detachedand semi detacheddwellings including newindividual and sharedaccesses) to subsitute rooftiles for MockBond Mini


Page 234





DecisionDate

Case Officer

Application Number


Stonewold, stone for featurewindow cills, and featurebrickwork panels to matchfacing brickwork


B/18/0195 27/09/2018Kirsty Harte Boston DentalCentre


Boston Dental Centre, 1BSaundergate Lane,Wyberton, Boston, PE217BX

Retrospective applicationfor the retention of a staticcaravan approved underB/13/0121 to be used forstorage in association withthe dental surgery


B/18/0291 28/09/2018John Taylor Padley Unfavourabledecision

Bramley House, WainfleetRoad, Boston, PE21 9RW

Erection of detached 1.5storey annexe and garage,following demolition ofexisting outbuildings


B/18/0233 28/09/2018FrankishJohn Taylor Favourable withconditions

Erection of residentialdwelling

The Spinney (land south ofCherry Holt Farm), RalphsLane, Boston, FramptonWest, PE20 1RJ

Frampton Parish Council


Page 235





Documents

Borough of Boston