Venue: This meeting will be held virtually via Zoom and streamed live via the following link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsz_igjTc1WQX-EZWY8rQ9w
Contact: Karen Rist, Democratic Services Officer Phone: 01205 314226 E-mail: email@example.com
To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitutes (if any).
Apologies for absence were tabled by Councillor Paul Goodale and Councillor Chelcie Sharman. Councillor Deborah Evans substituting for Councillor Sharman.
To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.
With the agreement of the planning committee members, the Chairman signed the minutes of the previous planning committee meeting held on the 11 February 2020.
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
To receive declarations of interests in respect of any item on the agenda.
Prior to receiving any declarations of interest the Chairman made a statement:
“I would like to remind members that they should approach all items with an open mind and any member who may feel conflicted, pre-determined or who cannot approach an application with an open mind should declare as such and leave the meeting for that item of business”
Standing Declarations of Interest are tabled within these minutes for:
Councillors Tom Ashton, Alison Austin and Paul Skinner in their respective roles as Lincolnshire County Councillors.
Councillors Tom Ashton, Alison Austin and Peter Bedford in their respective roles as members of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee and Councillor Jonathan Noble in his role as a substitute member of the committee.
Councillors Tom Ashton, Peter Bedford and Frank Pickett in their respective roles as members of the Internal Drainage Boards.
Councillor Peter Bedford declared a prejudicial interest in planning application B 19 0520 in that he had made comment with officers on the application previously. Furthermore, some members of the Hubberts Bridge Community Centre, which had submitted written objections in respect of the application, were personally known to him and as such Councillor Bedford confirmed he would absent from the meeting at that point in the proceedings.
Councillor Paul Skinner declared that whilst both of the applicants on Planning Application B 19 0520 where known to him through his work as a portfolio holder he was not pre-determined in anyway and would listen and make his decision on the evidence presented.
Councillor Peter Watson declared that he was a member of Kirton Parish Council and stated that he had taken no part in any discussion, when planning application B 19 0520 had been considered by the Parish Council. Councillor Watson advised he would take an open approach when determining the application.
Councillor Yvonne Stevens declared that one of the applicants of planning application B 19 0520 was known to her and had discussed the matter with her previously. However, Councillor Stevens declared that she was not prejudiced by any previous discussion undertaken and would address the item with an open mind.
Councillor Jonathon Noble declared that one of the applicants for planning application B 19 0520 was known to him for a brief time when the applicant had been a former Conservative Councillor however that would not influence any decision he would make on the application.
Councillor Stephen Woodliffe declared that Mr Arundel one of the applicants for planning application B 19 0520 was known to him, and that he had met the member in a local supermarket over 6 months ago when the applicant had spoken of his plans. Councillor Woodliffe confirmed that the discussion would not affect his judgement and he would vote with an open mind.
Councillor Brian Rush declared that he knew one of the applicants and that as a former ward member for Frampton and Kirton Holme, with many of the residents within the area known to him. Councillor Rush further confirmed that he ... view the full minutes text for item 3.
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 23 July 2020.
No public question.
It is recorded that at this part in the proceedings Councillor Peter Bedford absented from the meeting.
Hybrid planning application seeking:
Full planning permission for the part change of use of the golf course for the siting of caravans with associated works including landscaping, handstandings and access routes; provision of a sales area including siting of ‘show units’ and associated parking; and,
Outline planning permission (all matters reserved) for the development of a ‘hub building’ of up to 12,000 sqm total floorspace – to contain an ancillary reception/activity centre/spa (Class D2)/retail unit (up to 100sqm)/ food and beverage (Classes A1, A4 and A5) and facilities management and ancillary works; and provision of a sales building and associated works.
Boston West Golf Centre
Applicant: Boston West Golf Limited
Hybrid planning application seeking:
Full planning permission for the part change of use of the golf course for the siting of caravans with associated works including landscaping, handstandings and access routes; provision of a sales area including siting of "show units" and associated parking; and
Outline planning permission (all matters reserved) for the development of a "hub" building of up to 12,000sqm total floorspace - to contain an ancillary reception/activity centre/spa (Class D2)/retail unit (up to 100sqm)/ food and beverage (Classes A1, A4 and A5) and facilities management and ancillary works; and provision of a sales building and associated works
Boston West Golf Centre, Langrick Road, Hubberts Bridge, Boston,
Lincolnshire, PE20 3SG
Boston West Golf Limited.
The Growth Manager presented the report to the committee with a summary noted below:
Initially displaying a number of slides, the Growth Manager identified the location of the site and neighbouring properties and businesses, along with existing SUD’s features, a vista of the clubhouse and the open area of the site on which the caravans would be erected should the application be granted.
Drone shots depicted the fairways and the heavily landscaped nature of the area, along with the driving range and the driveway through the site. Providing a wider context the drone shots further identified vistas across the range; views back to the clubhouse and the central fairway relationship with the Boardsides on the southern west boundary,
The western part of the site would be developed out for 300 caravans with associated development and associated access roads with a series of circular routes serving the caravans. If granted it was the intent of the applicant to construct the caravans in a lodge style comprising a mix of single and double units and the existing access road would be used and extended to formalise a route to serve the caravan units. Each lodge would have one car parking space with all existing parking remaining.
The site was established and verdant and although there would be some impact of existing trees within the site, it was relatively minor in the overall arboreal character. Boundary treatments were well established and any gaps therein would be sensitively re-enforced with additional trees and shrubs. The northern boundary would see rabbit proof fencing and stock fencing installed with knee rail and hand-gate fencing along the access.
A detailed heritage impact assessment had concluded the development would not harm the area. Although the site sat in a sensitive location with a number of heritage assets in the vicinity it was felt that given the separation distance and the nature and scale of the units considered, the application was acceptable.
Archaeological finds had initially recommended trial trenching be implemented for siting the Caravans. However, officers had felt it unnecessary as the nature of excavations for hard standing for caravans, was equal to trial trenching and had conditioned that an Archaeologist be on site whenever deeper excavation took place.
Two rounds of formal consultation had been undertaken, ... view the full minutes text for item 5.
Erection of a one and a half storey building comprising ground floor retail unit (use class A1) and a first floor 1-bed apartment, together with revised access and parking arrangements.
2 Eastwood Road
Applicant: Mr Erhan Akyuz
Erection of a one and a half storey building comprising ground floor retail unit (use class A1) and a first floor 1-bed apartment, together with revised access and parking arrangements
Boston, 2, Eastwood Road, Fishtoft PE21 0PH
Mr Erhan Akyuz
The Growth Manager presented the report for the erection of a one and a half storey building. He advised members that the original application would have doubled the existing site and had included a significant extension to the existing shop; fewer parking spaces, a building to the rear and a flat to the upper level. The amended plan provided greater reduction in build along with increased parking.
Visual slides confirmed the layout of the proposed development alongside the existing buildings. The access and exit plan showed access only from Lindis Road with exit direct onto Eastwood Road, along with parking spaces providing entry and exit of the site in forward gear and a dedicated parking slot for delivery vehicles. The slides further identified the boundary of the site noting the loss of one dropped pavement on the corner reducing existing access points from 3 to 2, alongside increased visibility at the corner following removal of a high hedge previously shielding drivers’ vision when on the site.
Noting the additional commercial activity in close proximity to the site, the Growth Manager further advised that any concerns in respect of impact on the character of the site would be considered suitable, subject to the materials proposed and details in respect of boundary treatments and waste storage. Flood risk and air quality concerns identified to be addressed by recommended conditions.
Member debate followed the presentation which included the following matters which have been collated to incorporate repetition of comment and also to address questioning:
Strong concerns noted a number of highway issues along with the number of parking spaces provided against the number recommended and a lack of any designated cycle store. Whilst some members recognised that due to the location of site in a highly residential area, many customers would probably visit on foot, others advised that with the commercial offer in the area many users did travel via car due to a lack of local shops elsewhere.
Issues raised included concern in respect of exiting Lindis Road, due to the slight bend of the road with cars coming from Freiston Road onto Eastwood Road, the level of existing traffic at the busy crossroads and the increased potential for both traffic and pedestrian accidents resulting from the additional business.
Members agreed the call-in of the application by Fishtoft Parish Council with echoing the concerns of the Parish Council in respect of highway safety.
Referencing access and exiting of the site a member asked how practical it would be with cars swinging in from Lindis Road. Referencing the delivery vehicle space for a 7.5 tonne vehicle a member stated that many delivery vehicles were larger and would as such block the entrance. Such vehicles would potentially enter in ... view the full minutes text for item 6.
Public submissions in respect of planning committee agenda items 28 July 2020.