Venue: Boston Guildhall
Contact: Karen Rist, Democratic Services Officer Phone: 01205 314226 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitutes (if any).
Councillor David Brown and Councillor Deborah Evans tabled apologies. No substitute members in attendance.
To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.
With the agreement of the committee, the Chairman signed the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 29 April 2021.
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
To receive declarations of interests in respect of any item on the agenda.
Standing declarations of interest are recorded for the following Members of the committee:
Councillors Tom Ashton, Alison Austin and Paul Skinner in their respective roles as Lincolnshire County Councillors.
Councillors Tom Ashton, and Peter Bedford in their respective roles as members of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee and Councillors Jonathan Noble and Paul Skinner in their roles as substitute members’ of the said committee.
Councillors Tom Ashton, Peter Bedford and Paul Skinner in their respective roles as representatives of the Internal Drainage Boards.
Councillor Peter Watson declared that he had called-in Planning Application B 21 0158 based only on information from the planning department. Councillor Watson confirmed he had held no discussion with any party in respect of the application and would determine it with an open mind based on the evidence presented.
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 24th July 2021.
No public questions.
Proposed horse walker for up to four horses.
Holly Cottage, Drainside North Kirton Boston PE20 1PE
Mr Thomas Strickland
Planning Application B/21/0158
Proposed horse walker for up to four horses
Holly Cottage, Drainside North, Kirton, Boston PE20 1PE
Mr Thomas Strickland
The Assistant Director – Planning presented the application to committee, confirming that it had been called-in, due to the planning history on the site. As such, it was agreed that a transparent determination by the committee was required for this application.
The application site had an area of approximately 0.01 hectares, and consisted of a hard-core / gravel-surfaced area of land. Part of land sited a shipping container used for the open storage of materials and machinery. In addition, the site had a 3m-high deciduous hedge to the north, a paddock to the west and a large barn/stable building to the east
The site formed part of a much larger property that consisted of a two-storey building, a one-and-a-half storey garage block, an equestrian ménage, stables, storage buildings and extensive paddocks. The surrounding area was rural in character with four other dwellings within approximately 200m. The surrounding land including much of that to the north and south already had horses on them.
The horse walker, which the application indicated would be used in connection with the domestic use of the site, would be 10 metres in diameter with the fences standing 1.7 metres. It would form a circular structure with inner and outer mesh fences and a rubber-surfaced walkway for the horses. It would be un-roofed and un-lit.
Addressing the history of the site, the Assistant Director – Planning advised that it had been subject to various planning permissions with the most recent being in 2019, when permission was granted for a timber barn for use as a stable and for private use.
Confirming there had been no response from any of the statutory consultees, the Assistant Director – Planning advised that representation had been received from the neighbour at Spittal Farm, citing concerns that the surface water would flow onto their land increasing future flood risk. The neighbour further stated they felt the application was contradictory concerning the disposal of surface water as the application indicated the use of a soakaway, but the Flood Risk Assessment suggested that water would disperse into the surrounding ground. Officers had conditioned a scheme for the provision and implementation of surface water be submitted.
Representation was received from Mr Henty in objection to the application that included the following:
Reiterating the opening comments of the Assistant Director – Planning, Mr Henty referenced the history with the applicants and stated he was pleased the application had come before committee for transparency of the decision making. He advised that ongoing development at the application site had resulted in damage to his land. Referencing the hedge identified within the report for surface run-off, he confirmed that the hedge was on his land and that the size of the intended site required soakaways be used for run-off water and not his hedge. Referencing the barn built in 2019, Mr Henty stated that the application had ... view the full minutes text for item 106.
A report by the Assistant Director – Planning.
The Assistant Director – Planning presented the report advising that all the decision were contained within the report for reference.
9 decisions had been appealed of which 7 had been dismissed, 1 allowed and 1 was quashed in respect of enforcement on tall trees with a new application on going.
The Council’s Appeal performance remained good and was better than the national target over the rolling two-year period, which was a good indicator of the quality of decision taking. It further reflected the current position within the local plan, which would have an effect in terms of guiding development and reducing the Councils exposure to speculative applications.
The Assistant Director – Planning referenced two notable applications of interest:
The first being the decision in respect of the Field Street application that the Inspector had supported which had been the first test of Policy 21 in respect of HMO development.
The second decision in respect of the Land north of Millstone Kirton End. An earlier application allowed on Appeal on a site not far from the Land was prior to the local plan and at a time where the Council had no 5-year housing land supply (5YHLS). This application within the same general area was dismissed, with the Inspector giving weight to the local plan and noting the existence of a 5YHLS.
Concluding the Assistant Director – Planning provided a short update on workload during the past year. He advised Members that the work progression for 2020/21 was comparable against the previous year. Of the 525 applications received the substantive amount were agreed, many through delegated decision. Moving on to housing completions, it was noted that 294 units were completed last year, 142 of which had been affordable.
Member comment praised the performance level and number of affordable houses coming forward. Referencing the Appeal decision notices a request asked for all Members to received hard copies of the notices as had been the previous practice. It was then discussed whether they could be added to the electronic weekly list or circulated electronically. Members agreed that the Appeal decision notices were not only interesting they were also a very informative tool to aid in decision-making. A Member asked how the Council was fairing in regard of its housing completion targets and how it compared to other authorities.
The Assistant Director – Planning responded to the member comments by advising he would prefer to circulate the decisions electronically as all of them were available on the website anyway, and would discuss with the planning team to see how the system could provide the documents.
Addressing the housing completion targets’ he advised that the Council was 16 down on the year with 294 completions against the targeted 310, but this was not unexpected given Covid19 had affected development with the closure of building sites. It was hoped that Government would give allowances for the closure of the site.
Trying to compare workloads was very difficult as each Council worked differently. However the general feeling ... view the full minutes text for item 107.