Public Document Pack

Boston Borough Council Municipal Buildings Chief Executive Boston PHIL DRURY Lincolnshire MCIAT, ACIOB PE21 8QR Tel: Tel 01205 314227 Fax: DX: 26823 - BOSTON

My ref: PE/KR/Planning

Please ask for: Janette Collier, Democratic Services (Direct number Tel 01205 314227)

Monday, 3 October 2016

NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

Dear Councillor

You are invited to attend a meeting of the Planning Committee

on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 at 2.00 pm

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

PHIL DRURY Chief Executive

Chairman: Councillor Alison Austin Vice Chair: Councillor Colin Brotherton Councillors: David Brown, Michael Cooper, Anton Dani, Maureen Dennis, Jonathan Noble, Sue Ransome, 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)

AA GG EE NN DD AA

PART I - PRELIMINARIES

A APOLOGIES

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

B MINUTES 1 - 4

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting, held on 13 September 2016

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.

PART II - AGENDA ITEMS

1 PLANNING APPLICATION B 16 0210 5 - 18

Full Planning Permission

Retrospective application for the retention of works consisting of the construction of a koi pond and associated equipment surrounded by decking, the erection of a plant room/shed and a summerhouse, including the dispersal of the excavated soil around the raised area

134 Spilsby Road, Boston PE21 9NY

Mr & Mrs M Abdel-Khalek

2 RECEIPT OF APPEAL DECISION 19 - 30

A report by the Development Control Manager on the appeal decision in respect of land at the corner of Sibsey and Wainfleet Roads, Boston

3 DELEGATED DECISION LIST 29 AUGUST TO 23 SEPTEMBER 31 - 42 2016

A report by the Development Control Manager for noting.

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 Janette Collier, Democratic Services, Municipal Buildings, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 8QR, (Direct number Tel 01205 314227), e-mail: [email protected].

Council Members who are not able to attend the meeting should notify Janette Collier, Democratic Services 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) 314227

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 Agenda Item B

PLANNING COMMITTEE 13 SEPTEMBER 2016

Present:

Chairman: Councillor Alison Austin Vice-Chairman: Councillor Colin Brotherton

Councillors: David Brown, Michael Cooper, Anton Dani, Martin Griggs, Jonathan Noble, Sue Ransome, Brian Rush, Claire Rylott, Paul Skinner, Yvonne Stevens and Stephen Woodliffe

Officers: Head of Built Environment and Development, Development Control Manager, John Taylor, Monitoring Officer and Senior Democratic Services Officer

37 APOLOGIES

There were apologies for absence from Councillor Maureen Dennis; Councillor Martin Griggs was present as her substitute on the Committee.

38 MINUTES

The minutes of the Committee’s last meeting, held on 16th August 2016, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

39 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Councillor Yvonne Stevens declared an association with the Haven Navigation Group in order to speak for the fishermen. The Monitoring Officer stated that Councillor Stevens had a conflict of interest with respect to the report on the Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) consultation on the Boston Barrier and had been advised that she could take part in the deliberation of this item, but to leave the meeting at the point that the Committee was ready to vote on it.

Mr Rodney Bowles, a local commercial river user, and Mr Ken Bagley and other members of the Fishing Fleet were present in the public gallery to observe consideration of the item on the Barrier.

The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Councillors Paul Skinner, Claire Rylott and Sue Ransome declared that they knew Mr Bowles in various capacities, but there was no conflict of interest and had not been influenced on the matter. Councillor Sue Ransome also declared that she knew Mr Bagley, but this would not affect her decision. Councillor Brian Rush declared that he had visited the wharf with Councillor Yvonne Stevens when interested parties had been present, but he had not communicated with them. Councillor David Brown declared that he was a close personal friend of Mr Bagley, but this would not influence his decision.

Page 1 Planning Committee 13 September 2016

40 THE TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992 CONSULTATION ON THE BOSTON BARRIER

The Head of Built Environment & Development presented a report, which advised the Committee of the Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) that had now been submitted to the Secretary of State for the Boston Barrier project.

The report summarised the overall process of the TWAO, the role that the Council, purely as a statutory consultee, had in the process and the officers’ recommendation and consideration of the scheme from a planning perspective, which would be conveyed to the Secretary of State if , if endorsed.

The Committee was asked to lend its full support to the scheme as proposed, making clear that it raised no objections, and to delegate authority to the Development Control Manager to amend and finalise the suggested list of conditions contained at the rear of the report in order to ensure that they were sufficiently robust.

It was proposed by Councillor Paul Skinner and seconded by Councillor Claire Rylott that the scheme be fully supported, with no objections raised, and that authority be delegated to the Development Control Manager to amend and finalise the conditions, as requested.

[Councillor Yvonne Stevens left the room at this point.]

Vote: 8 for, 2 against, 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED: That the Committee fully supports the Boston Barrier Project as proposed in the Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) submitted to the Secretary of State and raises no objections, and that authority be delegated to the Development Control Manager to amend and finalise the suggested list of conditions (set out at the end of the Planning Officers’ report) in order to ensure that they meet the tests of being necessary, relevant to planning and the development proposed, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

41 PLANNING APPLICATION B 16 0305

Proposal: Application for listed building consent for the construction of a concrete flood defence wall which would physically abut the parapet of the Grade II listed Maud Foster Sluice, with the creation of a water tight joint in association with The Boston Barrier Site: Maud Foster Sluice, Port of Boston, Boston, PE21 0AF Applicant: Alison Hukin, Environment Agency

[Councillor Yvonne Stevens returned to the room at this point.]

The Head of Built Environment & Development presented an application for listed building consent for the construction of a concrete flood defence wall, which formed part of the overall project for the ‘Boston Barrier’ and would also need to be referred to the Secretary of State for a final decision.

Page 2 Planning Committee 13 September 2016

It was proposed by the Chairman, Councillor Alison Austin, and seconded by the Vice- Chairman, Councillor Colin Brotherton, that the application for listed building consent be supported, as recommended by the Planning Officers.

Vote: 12 for, 1 abstention

RESOLVED: That the Committee supports the application for listed building consent in preparation for the proposal to be referred to the Secretary of State for a final decision with the following recommended conditions:

1. The works must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of this consent.

Reason: To ensure that the development is commenced within a reasonable time period and to be imposed pursuant to Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted application forms, the Design Heritage and Access Statement and the following plans;

. Ref: IMAN001472-EVT-LBC-001 Rev P1 – ‘Site Boundary and Barrier Project Plan’ (1/4) . Ref: IMAN001472-EVT-LBC-002 Rev P1 – ‘Maud Foster Sluice Location Plan’ (2/4) . Ref: IMAN001472-EVT-LBC-004 Rev P1 – ‘Maud Foster Sluice Proposed Works’ (4/4)

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, in order to retain the historic integrity of this listed structure and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

3. The works to the Maud Foster Grade II listed structure hereby approved shall not begin until a written scheme of site management for that structure to minimise any damage and the risk of damage to the fabric of the structure, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The written scheme shall include: (a) Survey drawings and photographs of all external parts of the listed structure to be affected by the works; and (b) a method statement for the works including any protective works that need to be put in place.

Reason: To enable reasonable and proper control to be exercised over the detail of the works and to accord with the intentions of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

Page 3 Planning Committee 13 September 2016

42 TRITON KNOLL ELECTRICAL SYSTEM - NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT

The Development Control Manager provided an update on the application for the on- shore electrical system to connect the approved off-shore Triton Knoll Wind Farm via a new substation to the existing National Grid Substation at Bicker Fen.

The Minister had released the decision and consent was issued on 5 September 2016, taking effect from 27 September, with the period for judicial review to expire on 12 October 2016. The consent covered all the necessary consents, e.g. planning permission, compulsory purchase rights, tree preservation order consents etc. Copies of the examination report, the Minister’s decision and the consent, which was secondary legislation and included al the related consents, were available on request and on the website.

The work to take place was divided into 20 stages, one of which was the new sub- station at Bicker Fen. A significant achievement on the part of the local planning authority was the negotiation of a dedicated and permanent haul rout from the A17 to the new sub-station, which meant that Bicker would be totally unaffected in terms of traffic.

All stages of the work had requirements and each stage would result in the submission of an application to the local planning authority for approval, for example, the design of the new sub-station, each with a fee of £97. The Council’s Senior Enforcement Officer would be a key officer in this work and negotiations were still underway with the applicant for a Planning Performance Agreement to cover resources including normal enforcement work. The applicant was moving ahead quickly and a project plan was expected after Christmas. The construction period could take seven years.

43 RECEIPT OF APPEAL DECISIONS

The Development Control Manager presented the appeal decisions in respect of two applications noted within the report: Rear of 100 Horncastle Road, Boston (which was dismissed) and The Pincushion Inn, 289 London Road, Wyberton (which was allowed and a partial award of costs against the Council was given, though these would not be significant).

44 DELEGATED DECISION LIST 01 08 2016 TO 26 08 2016

Committee noted the Delegated Decision List. The Development Control Manager explained that the first item, a request for a Screening Opinion, was usually a precursor to receipt of a planning application and that the applicant was checking that the proposed development would not be classed as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Development, which would require an environmental statement. The decision was that this proposal was not EIA Development, as it was not considered that it would ‘significantly’ affect the environment.

The Chairman and Committee thanked the Head of Built Environment & Development for 18 years loyal service at the Council, as this was his last meeting before retirement.

The Meeting ended at 3.35 pm

Page 4 Agenda Item 1

PLANNING APPLICATION B 16 0210

Full Planning Permission

Retrospective application for the retention of works consisting of the construction of a koi pond and associated equipment surrounded by decking, the erection of a plant room/shed and a summerhouse, including the dispersal of the excavated soil around the raised area

134 Spilsby Road, Boston PE21 9NY

Mr & Mrs M Abdel-Khalek

Boston Borough Council Planning Committee Meeting Tuesday 11 October 2016

Page 5 Page 6 Page

Application B/16/0210

BOSTON BOROUGH COUNCIL

Planning Committee – 11 October 2016

Reference No: B/16/0210

Expiry Date: 27 July 2016

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Retrospective application for the retention of works consisting of the construction of a koi pond and associated equipment surrounded by decking, the erection of a plant room/shed and a summerhouse, including the dispersal of the excavated soil around the raised area

Site: 134 Spilsby Road, Boston PE21 9NY

Applicant: Mr & Mrs M Abdel-Khalek

Ward: Trinity Ward Parish: Boston Town Area Committee

Case Officer: Paul Edwards

Third Party Reps: Five

Recommendation: GRANT

1.0 Reason for Report

1.1 This application is presented to Committee since the development is the subject of an Enforcement Notice served by the Council to seek its removal. The application has been made following extensive negotiations to see if the development might be regularised and the application is the subject of objections and comments. The Scheme of Delegation indicates that applications that have such a level of public interest should be considered by Committee.

2.0 Application Site and Proposal

2.1 The application site is a semi detached property fronting Spilsby Road, No 134 (semi-detached with No 136). The building is a Grade II listed building and is on the north side of Spilsby Road almost opposite to the junction with Mayfair Gardens. The other half of the semi to the north east has been converted to flats, as is the detached and also listed property, Elm House at No. 132 adjacent to the south west. The former rear garden of Elm House accommodates a single storey detached dwelling, Dragons Gate. Similarly, behind No. 136, is a detached property, The Garden House which faces south to the north of the application site boundary.

2.2 The frontage properties on both sides of Spilsby Road here are mostly all within the Spilsby Road Conservation Area; although the Area boundary is drawn quite

Page 7 Application B/16/0210

tightly close to the rears of properties so many of the gardens are cut across by the Area boundary. The application site is the entire curtilage and property at No. 134 but the pond and outbuildings the subject of this application are outside of the Conservation Area.

2.3 This is a retrospective application to retain a koi carp pond which is sited towards the back of the garden. ‘Koi’ are ornamental varieties of domesticated common carp (Cyprinus carpio) that are kept for decorative purposes in outdoor koi ponds or water gardens. The approximate dimensions of the water body are 13m long by 5.5m wide, with an approximate maximum depth of 2m. Very approximately, the capacity of the pond can be calculated from these maximum dimensions to be in the region of 100,000 litres (~22,000 gallons). The application also includes the timber shed close to the rear boundary in the northwest corner which contains sponge and sand filtration equipment and there is also a small summerhouse adjacent to the north boundary. There is a small enclosure on the north side of the pond screening some above ground equipment. The pond is encircled by a raised earth mound beneath applied wooden decking and generally the land levels have been raised in the immediate vicinity of the pond such that the lawn slopes gently up towards the development and the decking is approached by steps up from the rest of the garden.

2.4 Initially, the shed close to the rear boundary housed pump and filtration equipment and it is understood that the Council’s Environmental Protection team were involved in alleged noise nuisance complaints. Subsequently, the equipment has been upgraded and altered in that the shed now houses some filtration devices whilst the potentially noisier pump and tank elements are behind the northern enclosure and submerged within the pond. There is still some equipment that incorporates falling water linked to the need to aerate the pond and this may be heard from outside of the site.

3.0 Relevant History

3.1 Complaints about the construction of the pond and the ancillary equipment were first received in June 2015. Following investigation and site visits it was your officers’ without prejudice opinion that the development could be the subject of a planning application in order to seek to regularise the works. However, despite repeated requests, in the absence of such an application and with the continued receipt of complaints, officers were left with no other option but to serve an Enforcement Notice as a last resort.

3.2 The Notice was issued on 7 March 2016 and it requires the removal of all plant and equipment associated with the pond; the draining of the pond and the reinstatement of the land to the levels of the adjacent garden area. A three month period for compliance was stipulated (4 July 2016).

3.3 The Notice became the subject of an appeal which is to be heard by way of an Inquiry and the appeal was accompanied by an Application for Costs against the Council. An Inquiry date has been set for 28 February 2017. The appeal suspends the effectiveness of the Notice until the appeal decision is issued.

3.4 On 1 June 2016, a retrospective planning application was submitted and validated. This is the planning application which is now in front of Committee.

Page 8 Application B/16/0210

3.5 The process of the appeal is now suspended by agreement in that the Planning Inspectorate will delay any further deadlines for the submission of statements of case or evidence until 31 October 2016. This is on the basis that a decision on the application will potentially be known by then. It follows that if permission is granted the Enforcement Notice will be withdrawn and the appeal process will end. If permission is refused, the enforcement appeal will continue and it will be heard at the Inquiry next February.

3.6 In February 2012 an application for listed building consent for a rear conservatory on the property was allowed on appeal (B/11/0115). Subsequently the requisite planning application for the same works was approved under delegated powers (B/11/0073). This is relevant in so far as the Inspector, in allowing the appeal made observations and conclusions about the character of the area and listed building and the potential ‘lesser importance’ of the rear elevation(s) of this listed building. This is referred to below.

3.7 Finally, of relevance to this application is the consent given in August 2015 for a 3m high blockwork wall on part of the southern boundary between No.134 and Dragons Gate (B/15/0233). The wall is located along the boundary directly between the pond and Dragons Gate, located to the west of the works. The wall has not been built in accordance with the consent since different materials and methods of construction have been used. Those applicants have been invited to make a further application to seek to regularise the structure but have responded by saying that they will await the outcome of this pond application since they do not believe that any need to regularise the wall is urgent.

4.0 The need for planning permission

4.1 A considerable number of works to or within the curtilage of a dwelling house are ‘permitted development’. Specifically, secondary legislation grants permission through the permitted development rights for a Class of works under the heading ‘Class E - buildings etc incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house’. This includes any curtilage building or enclosure, swimming or other pool required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such. This also includes any maintenance, improvement or other alteration to such a building or enclosure.

4.2 All permitted development rights come with certain exceptions, limitations or conditions and they vary between Classes. Class E limitations include that ‘development is not permitted if the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated within the curtilage of a listed building’.

4.3 Thus this pond and all the outbuildings do not enjoy permitted development rights because they are within the curtilage of a listed building. Therefore it is implicit that these works require planning permission.

5.0 The applicants’ case in support of the application

5.1 The applicants’ explanatory statement to support this application says that the application is made on the basis that the development is within the curtilage of a listed building which results in the exclusion of normal permitted development rights. The root of consideration of this application, the applicants continue, is that as the work would normally be permitted development, the exception is clearly designed to protect the listed building and therefore the sole

Page 9 Application B/16/0210

consideration should be whether the works have an adverse effect upon the setting of the listed building.

5.2 Reference is then made to the 2012 appeal decision and that the Inspector concluded that the listed building’s importance is lesser when looking at it from the rear garden. Furthermore, the drawing of the Conservation Area boundary is such, they say, that the garden has lesser importance than the frontage to Spilsby Road which is both within the Area and has more of the heritage asset (Iisted building) on show. It is the applicants’ opinion that since that appeal decision identified the front of No.134 as a heritage asset of significance whilst the rear had less of a contribution, the pond and works are not affecting the principal parts of the asset.

5.3 The applicants continue that mitigation measures of acoustic and visual screening between the application site and Dragons Gate are provided by the 3m high wall that has been built between Dragons Gate and 134 by virtue of approval B/15/0233. The wall can achieve sound attenuation and will mitigate any noise caused by the aeration equipment.

5.4 If there is scope or need for any planning conditions for this application, the applicants request an opportunity to demonstrate that the noise sources and mitigation will adequately preclude any unacceptable noise occurring.

5.5 As a result of consultation responses, including from Environmental Protection, further information and specifications of how the pond was constructed and the nature of the equipment in use was requested.

5.6 In response the applicant has demonstrated that the shed contains filtration tanks and the previous pumps have been removed. An upgraded gravity fed pump system operates from the base of the pond sending water to be filtered and then recycled. The pond has one layer of pond grade underlay and two carpet layers beneath three layers of pond liner; the latter has a lifetime guarantee. The applicants also advise, and it has been demonstrated that they have Property Owners Liability insurance to deal with claims from third parties up to claims not exceeding £10 million.

5.7 At the time the additional information was received from the applicants the hours of operation of the filtration and oxygen systems were on the basis of 24 hours a day.

5.8 Subsequently, and following observation of the operations by Environmental Protection colleagues, the applicants have confirmed that the then suggested condition which would require all surface aeration (falling or cascading water) to only operate 8am to 10pm would not endanger the welfare of the fish and would be acceptable to them.

6.0 Relevant Policy

Boston Borough Local Plan

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

Page 10 Application B/16/0210

6.2 In response to the applicants’ suggestion that but for the works being in the curtilage of a listed building specific approval would not be required, and therefore the only things that may be taken into account in this application are the effects upon the listed building; your officers would say that this is incorrect.

6.3 Your officers take this view since the limitations in respect of curtilage buildings or ponds in the grounds of a listed building are limitations on whether works enjoy permitted development rights or not. The legislation which grants (or otherwise) permitted development rights makes no reference to how any subsequent applications should be determined or, for example, the matters that may be taken into account.

6.4 Applications for planning permission are to be considered against the development plan and determined in accordance with an up to date plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (s.38(6) of the Act and para 6.1 above). To not have regard to the development plan or to not take account of considerations that are clearly material would make any decision unsafe and vulnerable to challenge. It is your officers’ opinion that the appellants’ view that it is only the effects upon the listed building that can be taken into account in your consideration of this application is seriously flawed. These works do not require listed building consent.

6.5 The application site lies within the settlement limits of Boston and the following Local Plan Policies are relevant to the submission:

. Policy G1 – Amenity. This Policy is permissive of development unless the proposal would cause substantial harm.

. Policy G3 – Foul and Surface Water Disposal. This Policy would resist granting permission unless the means of disposal of each are satisfactory.

. Policy H10 – Extensions and Alterations. This Policy would permit extensions and alterations provided that local appearance is not substantially harmed, it relates well to size and shape of curtilage and that sunlight, daylight and privacy of neighbours are not seriously affected. Strictly this policy is not relevant since the existing dwelling house is not being extended or altered but the protection of amenity and whether the proposal relates well to the curtilage are reasonable considerations to take into account.

6.6 There are no saved Local Plan policies in respect of development in or affecting a Conservation Area or for development within the curtilage of a listed building.

National Planning Policy Framework

6.7 The National Planning Policy Framework refers to the need for local planning authorities to identify and assess the significance of heritage assets (listed buildings, conservation areas, for example) that may be affected by a proposed development (para 129) and including development affecting the setting of an asset. In requiring an applicant to describe the significance of assets affected this should be proportionate to the assets’ importance (para 128). Great weight, it continues, should be given to the asset’s conservation (para 132).

Page 11 Application B/16/0210

6.8 Finally paragraph 137 of the Framework says that authorities should look for opportunities for new development to enhance or better reveal an assets’ significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to...the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.

The statutory ‘Conservation Tests’

6.9 Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require the decision maker on a planning application which affects a listed building to have ‘special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest which it possesses’ (s.66). In considering applications in conservation areas, the duty is that ‘special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area’ (s.72).

6.10 Cases in the Court of Appeal in 2014 ruled on the effect of these statutory presumptions and the above guidance in the Framework (para 132) in that the balancing exercise in the Framework alone is not sufficient and there is ‘a strong statutory presumption against granting planning permission for development which would cause harm to the setting of listed buildings’ (see also para 26 of the Inspector’s appeal decision also attached elsewhere with this agenda).

7.0 Representations

7.1 Comments and objection have been received from Flat 1, Elm House, 132 Spilsby Road; from the Elm Management Company who are the owners of Elm House; The Garden House, 136 Spilsby Road; Dragons Gate, 132 Spilsby Rd and from 138 Spilsby Rd.

7.2 The comments or objection may be summarised as:

. Documents are insufficient and a lack of technical information to give proper assessment. Additional information required such as cross sections, depths, capacity, ground levels, details of construction, linings, overflows and nature of provisions to deal with seepage and passage of pore water; how the development is safe. There are no details of how the application has addressed concerns over leaks

. Plans incorrectly show the extent of ground raising

. Main concerns are flooding and increase in surface water experienced from the raising of land levels, truck loads of soil of dubious quality were delivered to raise ground levels. Leaks from the pump house, increase in surface water

. The amount of light from the development can be seen from the upper flats in Elm House, but they are too far away for noise to be an issue – any permission granted should include conditions preventing water and light escaping

. Object in strongest terms in respect of the noise from the pond, cannot be heard during the day but at night it disturbs sleep and the noise from the pumps is very noticeable. ‘Main impact has been noise’ through the use

Page 12 Application B/16/0210

of powerful pumps; can be heard from inside the house, cannot sleep with the window open; running water noise varies from merely intrusive to very irritating. The hedge reduction to facilitate ground raising has reduced effectiveness against noise

. It should not be our job for us to mitigate our neighbours’ actions, refers to the wall constructed at 132 and to the boundary dispute

. Not against it in principle, need some knowledge of how it was constructed and if it conforms to standards; the current noise levels are unacceptable 24 hours a day and this with a radio infringes amenity

. In view of the raised ground levels, there are effects upon privacy since there are now direct views into home and garden simply by somebody standing there

. Since this is retrospective, neighbours can comment from experience and it is unacceptable for applicants to have moved forward with little regard to neighbours

. Comments on the relationship between the application works and Dragons Gate, particularly in respect of privacy

. Understand the local drainage board has concerns about effects upon subterranean drainage and the water authority has concerns about the adequacy of drains to cater for emptying the pond

. A householder comments that they were not consulted specifically

. It is inherently dangerous, its integrity must be proved, proper noise and leakage safeguards incorporated and conditions imposed to preserve amenity. Failing that it should be refused and enforcement action be continued with.

7.3 The applicants have recently provided an eight page document seeking to rebut and answer all of the representations. Like the report on the representations above, it is necessary to summarise and seek to draw out the main and relevant points. The applicants’ submission may be summarised as:

. The development has not created any hard surfaces that cause run off and rainfall is still absorbed naturally; compared to other neighbouring properties which have significant areas of tarmac and which do not absorb rainfall and create their own standing water within their curtilages

. The occupants of No. 138 are some 600 feet from the development and given this significant distance it is surprising that the pond can be heard

. Some of the objections are to do with a history of poor neighbourly relationships

. The boundary between Nos 134 and The Garden House is mostly densely planted and it is impossible to see the ground floor level of The House from the application site and the applicants have planted three rows of dense planting to provide screening

Page 13 Application B/16/0210

. Much of the further information requested by the authority has been supplied

. In respect of the relationship to Dragons Gate the boundary between the two is a 3m high steel and concrete wall

. Much of the objection is linked to the way the applicants are now using a part of their garden which was not actively used because of the application property not being their main residence for a number of years. There is no control over a family using all parts of their garden for legitimate residential purposes and the summer house is not a ‘changing room’ as alleged

. The applicants have taken considerable steps to mitigate noise and have agreed to the suggested condition to restrict surface aeration between 10pm to 8am. Additional hedging has been provided on the boundary to Dragons Gate

. This application should be considered strictly from a planning perspective and but for the property being listed, the works would be permitted development

. There is no evidence that the pond and shed are intrinsically dangerous, all complaints against the applicants have been investigated by the various agencies

8.0 Consultations

8.1 The Witham Fourth District Internal Drainage Board (IDB) has commented that:

“The planning authority should determine if the pond presents any risk to nearby property. The structure if raised above ground level, should be capable of retaining the contents as a breach presents a rapid run-off risk and leakage over a period of time could result in problems affecting adjoining property. Disposal of surface water from the associated building along with any potential overflow from the pond needs to be addressed.”

8.2 The Environment Agency advises that since the application falls outside of their remit as a statutory consultee, they have no comments to make.

8.3 The County Council as Local Highway and Lead Local Flood Authority has replied that the development is acceptable and that it does not wish to restrict the grant of permission.

8.4 Boston Borough Council Environmental Protection initially requested more details on equipment specifications in order to assess noise. The applicants made alterations provided additional information and following a site visit, officers now advise that there are no objections in principle to the pond now that the submersible pumps and tanks have been installed. A condition is requested to prevent the operation of the surface aeration outside of the hours of 8am to 10pm, together with a maximum noise level on the boundary that should not be exceeded.

Page 14 Application B/16/0210

8.5 Subsequent to the receipt of further information provided by the applicants in terms of the nature of its construction, linings and equipment; there has been specific focused reconsultation with Anglian Water, the Internal Drainage Board and the Environment Agency.

8.6 Specific responses are referred to in a little more detail below, but the reconsultation has not resulted in any objections being received.

9.0 Planning Issues and Discussion

9.1 The requirements on the decision-maker in sections 66 and 72 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act and the s.38 (6) ‘presumption in favour of the development plan’ show beyond doubt that the applicants’ assertion that the only consideration is the effect upon the setting of the listed building(s) is incorrect.

The Conservation Tests

9.2 It is considered that the distance of the pond and works from the listed building and that the works are not particularly obvious or damaging in views from the listed property, or from within the Conservation Area leads to the opinion that the works do not harm these heritage assets. Views from the opposite direction, from the pond back towards the house; towards the other listed buildings on either side or into the Conservation Area do not harm the setting of the listed buildings or the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The shed and summer house are not unlike normal domestic garden structures and cause no harm. Thus it is considered that the setting of the listed buildings and the character or appearance of the Conservation Area is preserved. In some respects the landscaping and planting could even be regarded as making a positive contribution to the setting, as advocated by the Framework (para 6.8 above).

9.3 The pond and excavation themselves are not visible from outside of the site but the raised decking above previous ground levels introduces an activity and circulation around the pond that was perhaps not there before. The plant room/shed and the summer house are normal garden curtilage buildings in their appearance and do not present any harm to neighbours or effects upon the listed buildings/Conservation Area.

9.4 If Committee agree that there is no harm to either the listed building(s) or the adjacent Conservation Area the consideration is the nature of any effects upon neighbours to determine, against Plan policy, if there is any substantial harm sufficient to warrant refusal and then if there are any material considerations to indicate otherwise.

Water storage, leakage, discharge

9.5 The pond is contained within raised ground and although there have been allegations of it leaking these have not been able to be verified. In the absence of any objection from Anglian Water and that they do not have any record of ever attending the site to respond to alleged leaks, Anglian Water has not commented further since there are no proposals to discharge into their assets. The IDB has not added anything further than their comments reported above (para 8.1) and the Environment Agency advise that since this pond is not contained behind

Page 15 Application B/16/0210

raised bunds or banks like a reservoir and given the relatively smaller volume of water, they have no concerns.

9.6 There is information available, evidenced with photographs on the pond construction, the applicants hold Property Owners Liability Insurance and there are no objections from statutory bodies. A reasonable determining body has to assume that the applicants would wish to protect their extensive fish stock from water loss or leakage. In view of this, and in response to the IDB query, it leads to the conclusion that there is no evidence that the pond will leak or that the applicants will not take all reasonable steps to ensure against it. It would be unusual for such levels of interest or control on domestic ponds that otherwise do not require planning approval and thus your officer believes that Committee can be satisfied that the pond does not represent any threat or danger. The representations suggesting that statutory bodies have concerns have not been corroborated.

Noise

9.7 It is true that there have been complaints about pump and falling water noise but since submission, the applicants have changed and relocated equipment to seek to address such concerns. The present arrangement is to the satisfaction of Environmental Protection colleagues who acknowledge that the applicants have put measures in place and activities at present do not amount to nuisance; the suggested condition is required to protect neighbour amenity. The other activities associated with the use of the garden like any lighting or using a radio do not come under planning control and are not and cannot be a part of this application.

Neighbour amenities and privacy

9.8 The exact amount of land raising is difficult to quantify since in places the application area is higher than neighbouring lands but in others it appears to naturally taper and has not been obviously built up.

9.9 The movement of people around the pond, naturally forced closer to the garden boundaries means that neighbours might be more aware of the intensified use of this bottom end of the garden, but that is not in itself a ground for objection if the activity is to do with the enjoyment of a private garden (‘incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such’). The separation from neighbouring properties, their orientation and the nature of intervening planted or ‘hard’ boundaries (the new wall along part of the southern boundary) protect neighbours from any new overlooking or loss of privacy opportunities.

9.10 The new wall is not authorised since it has been built differently to the approval, so strictly it cannot be given much weight in your consideration since the authority does not know at this stage if it will remain. However, the height is the same as approved and although the method of construction is different, the faithful implementation of the consent might not result in much material difference to the outward appearance of it. It is your Development Control Manager’s view, without prejudice to any future decision of the authority, that there might be reasons why the Council would be unsuccessful if it sought its removal and rebuilding.

9.11 The recommended condition to do with noise will protect neighbours from overnight noise and there is no doubt that the new wall also contributes to some

Page 16 Application B/16/0210

noise mitigation. This is why the suggested condition (No 2) seeks any noise monitoring at either end of the wall – as if it was not there.

Use of conditions

9.12 A number of representations refer to the need for conditions including, for example to do with controlling a radio; lighting control; the type of equipment and future changes; preventing leakage or how the pumps are cleaned and maintained.

9.13 The radio and lighting suggestions are both not a part of the application and outside of the control of planning. Although it may be possible to construct a condition to seek to control any future changes of plant or equipment needing the prior approval of the local planning authority, this raises issues of reasonableness and a disproportionate level of control or interference with what is domestic equipment. A condition would not be able to prevent leakage and in view of the information reviewed above, this is unnecessary and unenforceable. Similarly seeking to influence the maintenance regime is a disproportionate interference.

9.14 The suggested condition below (Condition 2) is designed to address the only outstanding issue regarding noise. Your officers are of the opinion that any changes to plant or equipment would be picked up by this condition. The unneighbourly use of a radio or smells from badly maintained equipment all remain to be considered through Environmental Protection powers of statutory nuisance. To impose planning conditions on these would duplicate other non planning controls and fail a number of the tests for the imposition of conditions.

10.0 Conclusions and Summary

10.1 In view of the assessment above, it is concluded that the retention of the development will not cause substantial harm to neighbour amenity subject to the imposition of the recommended conditions below.

10.2 Policy G3 to do with foul and surface water disposal is satisfied as far as it applies in that the applicants have demonstrated through construction details that there are satisfactory measures in place and the statutory bodies raise no objection. The statutory Conservation tests are also satisfied (para 9.2 above).

10.3 The principal amenity policy is Policy G1 with its ‘substantial harm’ test. In respect of noise, the nature of the changes carried out by the applicants to seek to address the objections, the ability to properly control any presently unregulated noise by condition and the prevailing Environmental Protection controls suggest that there are no unresolved points.

10.4 The location of the pond, albeit at the bottom of the garden and in closer proximity to some neighbours than might normally be anticipated is not a reason to resist this application. This is since it does not give rise to real overlooking or loss of privacy.

10.5 Overall, it is concluded that Policy G1 is satisfied in that there is no substantial harm. Although work carried out before permission is in place is always undertaken at an applicant’s own risk, the ‘advantage’ with this retrospective application is that any effects have been observed, assessed and mostly

Page 17 Application B/16/0210

mitigated. The boundary dispute and any other ongoing differences of opinion between neighbours is not a planning matter. The development plan is satisfied, the Conservation Tests are satisfied and there are no material considerations to indicate that this application should be refused.

11.0 Recommendation

11.1 It is recommended that this application is approved subject to the conditions listed below:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted application forms dated 31 May 2016 and the following approved plans:

. Location Plan Scale 1:1250 . Site Plan Plan No A 90/1 . Details of Buildings Plan No A 90/2 . Letter and additional details from the applicants dated 5 July 2016 . Site Location Plan marked with Positions A and B Dwg No XX

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

2. The noise from mechanisms and equipment that provide surface, above water level aeration of the pond shall not exceed a level of 45 dB LA eq 15 min measured at a height of 1.5m at positions A and B on the site boundary shown on attached Dwg No. xxx which forms a part of this permission and those mechanisms and equipment shall not operate after 22.00hrs and before 08.00hrs on each day of operation.

Reason: To define this permission and to ensure that those pieces of equipment which utilise falling water to aerate the pond do not cause disturbance when the background noise levels are significantly reduced in order to protect residential amenity in accordance with saved Local Plan Policy G1.

In determining this application the authority has taken account of the guidance in paras 186 – 187 of the NPPF (2012) in order to seek to secure sustainable development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the Borough.

Paul Edwards Development Control Manager

Page 18 Agenda Item 2

B O S T O N B O R O U G H C O U N C I L

REPORT TO: Planning Committee

DATE: 11 October 2016

SUBJECT: Receipt of Appeal Decision

PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Councillor Peter Bedford

REPORT AUTHOR: Development Control Manager No EXEMPT REPORT?

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to advise members of the receipt of the appeal decision in respect of land at the corner of Sibsey and Wainfleet Roads, Boston.

This appeal has been dismissed (planning permission not granted).

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee are asked to note this report, the comments arising from it and provide guidance to officers on the matters raised.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

To address a Service Delivery Action Plan point for 2016/17.

Page 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 SINCE September 2016

2.1 The planning appeal decision in respect of

Land at the corner of Sibsey / Wainfleet Roads, Boston

is attached to this report.

Sibsey/Wainfleet Road

2.2 The Committee will recall that this application was refused in line with officer recommendation at your meeting on 10 November 2015 following a Committee site visit that morning.

2.3 The single reason for refusal and in the light of an objection from the highway authority read:

“1. The details submitted in support of this application do not adequately demonstrate that a suitable vehicular access between the proposed development and the adjacent A16 Sibsey Road could be provided that would not pose an unacceptable risk to the safe use of the public highway. Specifically, the submitted design on drawing NTW/2223/100-01 Rev P6 for the proposed Ghost Island Right-turn Lane on the A16 fails to comply in significantly too many key areas with the standards prescribed in 'TD42/95 Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions' within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. This application therefore does not comply with the objectives of Local Plan Policies G1, G6, H3, T1 and the NPPF (2012).”

2.4 A significant point to draw to Committee’s attention is that in the Inspector’s Main Issues (para 5) and notwithstanding that it was not refused by Committee on this ground, the Inspector considered that the effect of the proposal on the adjacent listed building is also to be treated as a main issue. This is quite within the Inspector’s powers since he is not bound by the Council’s reasons for refusal but may bring in his own experience and professional opinion.

2.5 In addition there remains the undetermined revised application on this site from these appellants which we understand might be revised in the light of this Inspector’s decision. Whilst the Committee cannot prejudice any future decision they might take on that application if it comes to Committee, this appeal decision now becomes a material consideration for that application.

Page 20

2.6 The bulk of the decision letter (paras 6-23) deals with the highways objections. In short summary, the Inspector concluded, contrary to the highway authority advice that:

 he was happy that Manual for Streets was the correct guidance to employ rather than The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges since Sibsey Road has more local characteristics of an urban street (para 11)  consequently Manual for Streets can be used for ghost island right turn junctions (para 12)  adequate visibility to the south (the centreline) could be achieved (para 14), and  there is a good level of forward visibility and reduced traffic speed when approaching from the south (para 18)

2.7 In conclusion on the highways point, the Inspector finds that Policies T1, H3 and G6 are all satisfied (para 23).

2.8 Paragraphs 24-28 on the effects upon the setting of the Burton Hall listed buildings must raise the question of whether any part of the appeal site is capable of development given, particularly what he says at para 24, and about ‘significant encroachment’ by the appeal proposals at para 25. The Committee might wish to form a view on this given that it is likely that the appellants might approach the Council again to see if there is a way forward with some development. Your officers’ view, and based upon the Framework’s balancing exercise is that the ‘less than substantial harm’ identified by the Inspector (para 25) would not preclude any development of the site but that it is likely to be a much smaller area for development.

2.8 Finally, under Other Matters, the amenities of the neighbour to the north would only be at minimal risk of loss of privacy (para 29); your officers think the Council did not need to provide information to demonstrate how the sequential test had been considered and passed since there are no other sites of this size at a lesser risk of flooding (para 31); and by the same token, it is inevitable that high quality agricultural land will be under pressure for development when there are no remaining housing allocations and when there is not a five year supply (para 32). It is considered that neither of these issues would be a barrier to the development of this site. Finally the comments about affordable housing (para 34) are now incorrect given that our starting point for the time being is a minimum 15% contribution.

3.0 CONCLUSION

3.1 This decision puts performance on appeals for 2016/17 to 16% - out of six; one has gone against the Council.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

None

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS None

Page 21 ANY OTHER IMPLICATIONS None

CONSULTATION Portfolio Holder: Councillor Peter Bedford

APPENDICES Planning appeal decisions in respect of:

Land off Wainfleet Road, Boston

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Background papers used in the production of this report are listed below: - Document title Where the document can be viewed

Application and appeal files. Development Control Land off Wainfleet Road, Boston B/14/0329

Page 22

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 August 2016 by Paul Singleton BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 21 September 2016

Appeal Ref: APP/Z2205/W/16/3150078 Land off Wainfleet Road, Boston, Lincolnshire PE21 9RN  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 Larkfleet Homes against the decision of Boston Borough Council.  The application Ref B/14/0329, dated 29 August 2014, was refused by notice dated 11 November 2015.  The development proposed is the construction of 76 new residential dwellings, associated garages and infrastructure.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matters

2. The application initially sought permission for 82 dwellings on the site but was revised to propose a lower number before it was determined by the Council.

3. A further revision (P7) of the drawing number NTW/2223/100-01, showing the Proposed Ghost Island Access, was submitted with the appeal. The Council has not objected to that plan having been submitted and I am satisfied it serves only to indicate the detailed dimensions of what had previously been proposed rather than to amend the proposals in any way. Hence, I do not consider that the interests of any party would be prejudiced by my taking that clarification of the proposals into account in my consideration of the appeal proposal.

4. The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year forward housing land supply (HLS) as required by paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and the relevant development plan policies for the supply of housing should, therefore, be considered to be out of date. The fourth bullet of paragraph 14 of the Framework states that, in these circumstances, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would clearly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework’s policies taken as a whole or specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.

Main Issues

5. The main issue arsing from the reason for refusal is the effect on the safety of highway users, drivers and pedestrians. However, in light of the representations from Historic England (formerly English Heritage), the Council’s

Page 23 Appeal Decision APP/Z2205/W/16/3150078

consultant conservation architect and other representations received and having regard to the duty under section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the 1990 Act), the effect of the proposal on the setting and significance of the listed heritage assets comprised in Burton Hall and its former stables should also be treated as a main issue. I note that, whilst the appellant submitted a draft Statement of Common Ground indicating that the effect on the setting of Burton Hall and the former stables would be acceptable, that was never signed by the Council.

Reasons

Highway safety

6. Central to the dispute between the parties is whether the visibility splays at the proposed site access should be assessed against the highway design standards and requirements set out in the Department of Transport’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) or those within Manual for Streets and Manual for Streets 2 (MfS and MfS2). The County Council’s assertion, that only DMRB standards should be used, rests on its argument that the primary function of the section of Sibsey Road (A16) from which vehicular access is proposed is to act as a transport corridor (i.e. as a road) and not to accommodate the movement of pedestrians and other non motorised users (i.e. a street).

7. The existence of three points of access/egress from Sibsey Road to the Pilgrim Hospital opposite the appeal site, which is both a major community facility and a major local employer, does on its own suggests a more varied role for this particular section of the road. That more varied role is confirmed by the direct frontage accesses to a large number of dwellings on the east side of the road which extend for some distance beyond its junction with Castle Road. MfS2 states that the strict application of DMRB to non trunk routes is rarely appropriate in built up areas, regardless of traffic volume (Status and Application) and that, even where DMRB is used, designers should bear in mind the key principles of MfS and apply DMRB in a way that respects local context (paragraph 1.3.3).

8. Having regard to that guidance I consider that it would not be appropriate to determine which guidance is to be preferred without taking account of the local context and, in particular, the use and character of the particular section of road from which access is proposed. Such an approach would seem to disregard both the main purposes of MfS2, which are to fill the gap between DMRB and MfS guidance and to explore how and where MfS principles could be applied to busier streets and non-trunk roads, and the statements within it that MfS2 should be the starting point for any scheme affecting a non-trunk road and that its guidance has been developed for roads with traffic speeds of 40mph or less.

9. The section of Sibsey Road from which the site access is proposed is of single carriageway form with footways and parking restrictions on both sides, is lit to an urban standard, and is subject to 40 mph speed limit. Although the site lies just outside of the development limits for Boston, the road itself is within that boundary and the proposed access is in relatively close proximity to the mini roundabout junction of Sibsey Road, Wainfleet Road and Spilsby Road. The main hospital building is prominent in view when approaching from the north and, together with the continuous line of boundary walls/hedges and driveways to the residential properties on the eastern side of the road, provides a clear

2 Page 24 Appeal Decision APP/Z2205/W/16/3150078

signal to drivers that they are entering the urban area. The start of the 40 mph speed limit and of the double yellow lines reinforces that message.

10. When travelling north from the town centre the hospital buildings are not immediately visible but, due to the extent of its site frontage, the width of the site access and egress, and the existing ghost island, most drivers are likely to be aware of the presence of a major hospital facility and to adjust their driving behaviour accordingly. Drivers of vehicles exiting from the roundabout to travel north have good forward visibility to and beyond the hospital access and I observed on my site visit that drivers tend to stay at a relatively low speed if they can see any build up of traffic around the hospital access. The character of the road corridor is such that there is no sense of having left the built up area until one has passed the Castle Road junction and reached the open fields on the west side of Sibsey Road. The speed surveys, which show that average speeds of northbound traffic are below the 40 mph limit, at between 32 and 38 mph both to the north and south of the proposed site access, support these observations.

11. For these reasons I consider that, whilst it does serve as a through route, the overall character of this section of Sibsey Road is more urban than rural. Indeed, the appeal site itself is the only site with a frontage with a more open and rural character but that would be changed if the proposal was to go ahead.

12. MfS2 makes clear references to right turn lanes, stating that highway authorities should consider carefully all their effects before deciding to use them and that, where they are used, refuges should be provided in ghost islands to facilitate pedestrians crossing (paragraph 9.4.9). These references do not support the County Council’s assertions that such junctions do not feature in MfS or MfS2 and that the standards set out in that guidance are only for simple ‘T’ junctions. Given these references within MfS2, and that Table 7/1 of TD42/95 within the DMRB, which specifies the Y distances for visibility measurement, does not itself distinguish between ghost island and other more standard junctions, I see no reason why MfS and MfS 2 guidance cannot be applied to ghost island right turn lanes as well to other forms of junction.

13. I have been referred to two appeal decisions (APP/E2530/A/10/2136072 and APP/F1610/A/14/2225029) in which the Inspectors found that MfS and MfS2 could be used to assess the visibility requirements at the proposed junctions, one within Lincolnshire and one elsewhere. Whilst I accept that neither of these cases provides a direct parallel to the current proposal the reasoning set out by both Inspectors supports my conclusion that it is appropriate to have regard to local context in deciding whether or not only DMRB standards need to be used. Accordingly, I find that the design guidance and requirements in MfS and MfS2 do provide an appropriate basis for assessing visibility requirements for the proposed access. However, I note the appellant’s contention that the proposed ghost island meets the DMRB requirements in all other respects.

14. A visibility splay 2.4 metres (m) (‘X’ distance) and 120m (‘Y’ distance) can be achieved to the north of the proposed access junction and the parties agree that this would provide ample visibility in that direction. Turning to matter of what minimum Y distance should be required to the south, I accept the appellant’s argument that the 32 mph average speed is the more representative of the two 85th percentile speeds identified by the speed survey since this was recorded at a point close to the southern end of the proposed

3 Page 25 Appeal Decision APP/Z2205/W/16/3150078

visibility splay. Using that average speed the appropriate Standard Stopping Distance calculation produces a Y distance requirement of 52m. The appellant’s plan shows that a Y distance of 58m, when measured at the edge of the carriageway, can be achieved and the MfS minimum standard would therefore be exceeded by a small degree. Although such splays are conventionally measured at the nearside carriageway edge, what a driver emerging from the site access road would need to be able to see is a vehicle approaching in the opposite lane rather than the kerb on the inside edge of the road.

15. MfS2 provides that visibility to the left of the minor road may be measured to the centreline of the main arm where circumstances make it unlikely that vehicles approaching from the left will cross the centreline (paragraph 10.5.5); in my view, such circumstances would be likely to apply in this case. Drivers exiting the mini roundabout are already discouraged from overtaking as they quickly encounter carriageway markings warning them to keep left in advance of the existing ghost island right turn lane serving the hospital access. The proposal would significantly reduce the likelihood of such drivers overtaking on the approach to the site access as the start of the proposed ghost island and pedestrian refuge would be only be a relatively short distance from the existing keep left bollard at the exit from the roundabout; there would, therefore, be very limited opportunity for a driver to attempt an overtaking manoeuvre on this section of the road. The appellant’s notes of their meetings with officers indicate that the County Council has previously accepted this likely outcome of the proposed works.

16. I consider that the measurement of the Y distance to the centreline is appropriate in this context and, as shown on drawing no. NTW/223/100-01 revision P6, the 85m distance that can be achieved would meet both the MfS and DMRB standards. In reaching this conclusion I have also had regard to the findings of the study reported in MfS2 that found no evidence to show that a reduction in the Y distance is directly associated with an increased collision risk at high risk urban sites.

17. The Parish Council has suggested that the speed limit along this section of the A16 should be reduced to 30 mph and, if this change were to take place, there would be no question that the MfS standards would apply when determining visibility distances. However, as such a change is only a possibility at this stage, I have not taken it into account in forming my judgement as to the acceptability of the splays which can be achieved.

18. I consider that the County Council’s concerns about the forward visibility for vehicles approaching from the south are misplaced given that average speeds recorded in the section of road closest to the roundabout are significantly below the 40 mph limit (at 32 mph) and that vehicles coming onto the roundabout from Spilsby Road or Wainfleet Road are likely to be travelling at even lower speeds. My own observations on my site visit are the there is a good level of forward visibility, both to and beyond the position of the proposed site access, for drivers exiting the roundabout. Also, as was accepted by the County Council in its meetings with the appellant, the development is likely to result in reduced rather than increased average speeds for vehicles travelling north between the roundabout and the site.

4 Page 26 Appeal Decision APP/Z2205/W/16/3150078

19. Although the hospital access opposite the site serves as an access only, with no vehicles exiting at this point, it would be in close proximity to the proposed site access to this junction. I note the County Council’s comment about the point at which drivers wishing to turn left into the hospital might begin to decelerate but I do not consider that the appeal proposal would result in an increased risk, given that the hospital access is to the north of the proposed site access junction. A driver wishing to turn right out of the site would need to assess the speed of oncoming traffic and judge whether there is time to complete the intended manoeuvre safely irrespective of whether the oncoming vehicle is turning into the hospital or carrying straight on in the through lane.

20. The details shown on drawing no. NTW/223/100-01 revision P7 appear to allay the County Council’s concerns with regard to a reduction in lane widths below 3m and a sharp reduction in the in the width of the north bound through lane and I do not find that there is any sustainable objection to the proposal on these grounds.

21. That plan also shows that the footway on the western side would be retained at its current maximum width. Whilst the status quo would be maintained in terms of that width the narrowing of the through lane to 3m along this section would have the effect of forcing vehicles to travel closer to the kerb line and would bring vehicles, including HGVs and buses, into closer proximity to pedestrians. Some of the third party representations comment that the existing footway is of inadequate width and that using it can be an uncomfortable and unpleasant experience. The changes resulting from the appeal proposal would be likely to make using the footway less comfortable and could discourage some of those that do make the journey to and from the hospital on foot from continuing to do so. However, given that a footway width of 1.5m is sufficient to allow two people to walk side by side and that the average speeds of northbound traffic would likely be further reduced as a result of the proposal, I have insufficient evidence to conclude that the footway would be unsafe as a consequence of the appeal scheme.

22. The County Council’s concerns as to the buildability of the amended footway would normally be technical matters to be resolved at the detailed design stage. However, the need to move the footway further to the west would mean that there is little or no remaining verge onto which pedestrians could step if they needed to do so to pass someone else. The removal of that opportunity would make it more important that full constructional details of the amended footways should be approved because the failure of any part of its construction could further reduce the width of footway available for pedestrian use until such time as an effective repair could be carried out. Whilst this matter would be a concern it is something that could be dealt with by means of an appropriately worded planning condition.

23. Having regard to these considerations I find that, although there may be some reduction in the level of comfort for users of the footway on the western side of the road, appropriate visibility splays and a safe and satisfactory access to the proposed development could be achieved. The proposal would provide safe and suitable access for all people and be consistent with paragraph 32 of the Framework. It would comply with saved Policy T1 of the Boston Borough Local Plan (1999) which states that a new access to an A class road will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no adverse effects on the safety and capacity of the road. It would also comply with saved Local

5 Page 27 Appeal Decision APP/Z2205/W/16/3150078

Plan policies H3 and G6 insofar as these policies presume against development where the proposed means of access is unsatisfactory or where it would cause or significantly aggravate adverse traffic conditions on the public highway.

Heritage assets

24. Burton Hall is a Grade II* listed building dating from the late 16th Century and its former stables are separately listed (Grade II) for their special architectural or historic interest. The Hall’s historic role was that of a substantial house standing outside of the borough boundary and set in rural surroundings including the fields to the north, west and east. The construction of the hospital and the ribbon housing development to the north of the appeal site have significantly compromised that historic setting and the extensive vegetation on its northern boundary has reduced the Hall’s visual relationship with that part of the appeal site which lies to the north. To the east its curtilage is defined by a post and rail fence of modest height and this largely open boundary provides for extensive views from the Hall and its grounds across the fields to the east and north east. Its visual connection with these adjacent fields has survived and the importance of this setting to the hall and the stables can be appreciated in the available views from Wainfleet Road. Based on my observations on my site visit I agree with the advice provided by Historic England that this retained setting is of considerable importance to the significance of both the Hall and its former stables.

25. The amendments that have been made to the scheme are a material improvement on what had previously been proposed. However, the houses proposed at the southern end of the site estate road would still represent a significant encroachment of new built development into the currently open field to the east of the Hall. This element of the proposal would, in my judgement, cause material harm to that important setting of the Hall and the former stables and, hence, to their significance as designated heritage assets. I agree that the harm would be less than substantial but it must be properly weighed in the determination of the appeal.

26. Paragraph 132 of the Framework states that, when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated asset, great weight should be given to that asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Paragraph 134 advises that, where a development will lead to les than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In carrying out that balancing exercise it is necessary to take account of the statutory duty set out in section 66(1) of the 1990 Act that special regard should be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. Regard must also be had to the relevant case law in respect of that statutory duty which has established that a decision maker must give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings when carrying out a balancing exercise in planning decisions.1

27. The provision of 76 new dwellings would represent a much needed contribution to housing needs in the borough and the weight to be given to this contribution is increased because of the current absence of a 5 year HLS. The proposal

1 East Northamptonshire District Council and others v SSCLG and Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited [2013] EWHC 473 Admin.

6 Page 28 Appeal Decision APP/Z2205/W/16/3150078

would provide affordable housing at a level of 20% of the proposed dwellings but the weight to be given to this benefit is reduced because this level of provision is below what would normally be sought because of viability issues. It would also generate economic benefits in terms of New Homes Bonus, construction employment and expenditure and expenditure by the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings in local shops and services.

28. When taken together these public benefits of the proposal are of significant weight. However, regard must be had to the Grade II* listed status of Burton Hall and to the paragraph 132 requirement that the more important the asset the greater the weight to be given to its conservation. In that context, and in circumstances where the setting of two listed buildings would be harmed, the application of the statutory duty leads me to conclude that these benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused to the significance of those designated assets. I therefore conclude that the proposal would conflict with the policies in section 12 of the Framework.

Other Matters

29. Having regard to the extent of vegetation to the site’s boundary with No 17 Sibsey Road and to the proposed site layout, which provides that the dwelling on Plot 1 would have no first floor windows in its northern elevation and that the first floor apartment on Plot 13 would have only obscurely glazed windows looking towards the neighbouring property, there would be minimal risk of any loss of privacy for the occupiers of No 17.

30. The policies in section 10 of the Framework steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding and paragraph 101 states that development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The starting point for consideration of the risk is the Environment Agency’s Flood Zone Mapping which shows the whole of the site being within Flood Zone 3 which has the highest probability of flooding.

31. The Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application identifies a low risk of tidal flooding of the site having regard to the findings of The Boston Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2010). However, notwithstanding the absence of any objection from the Environment Agency or the local Drainage Board, neither the appellant nor the Council has undertaken a sequential test to demonstrate that the proposed development could not be located in an area with a lower risk of flooding. Hence, I have insufficient information to show that the policy tests in section 10 are satisfied. However, in view of my conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed on the grounds of the effect of the proposal on the significance of the heritage assets, I do not need to come to a formal view on this matter.

32. The officer report to Committee suggests that any new housing around the existing development limits of Boston would need to use agricultural land. However, I have seen no evidence to demonstrate the level of development proposed could not be accommodated without involving the loss of 3.75 hectares of Grade 1 agricultural land. Hence, I am unable to conclude that there would be no conflict with the advice in paragraph 112 of the Framework that poorer quality land should be used in preference to the best and most versatile agricultural land. The loss of that land must, therefore, be regarded as a significant adverse effect of the proposal.

7 Page 29 Appeal Decision APP/Z2205/W/16/3150078

33. I consider that the proposal would not cause any detriment to the trees within the Tree Preservation Order and that the other significant trees within the site could be retained and incorporated into the proposed development. I am satisfied that the protection of these trees during construction works and that the preservation of key features of ecological and archaeological interest within the site could satisfactorily be dealt with by means of planning conditions.

34. The proposal would include affordable housing provision at a level of 20% of the units to be developed and this would make a valuable contribution to the provision of such housing in the area. However I note that a lower level of provision than that normally sought under the Council’s development plan policies has been agreed following the submission of a viability appraisal. Also for viability reasons, the proposal would not provide any of the other developer contributions which the Council would normally seek from a development of this type and scale.

Conclusions

35. For the reasons set out above I conclude that the proposal would result in harm, at a less than substantial level, to the significance of the designated heritage assets and that this harm would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal; the proposal would, therefore, conflict with the policies set out in section 9 of the Framework.

36. The Framework’s heritage policies are examples of the ‘specific policies’ referred in the second limb of the fourth bullet to that paragraph2 and these policies indicate that development should be restricted in this case. I also find that the harm to the designated heritage assets and the loss of Grade 1 agricultural land are adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal, notwithstanding the current absence of a 5 year HLS. Accordingly the proposal would not constitute sustainable development and the paragraph 14 presumption in favour of a grant of planning permission does not apply.

37. For these reasons, and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.

Paul Singleton

INSPECTOR

2 Footnote 9 to paragraph 14

8 Page 30 Agenda Item 3

BOSTON BOROUGH COUNCIL

DELEGATED DECISION LIST FOR PERIOD 29 August 2016 TO 23 September 2016 - FOR NOTING

SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND RELATED MATTERS

REPORT BY: DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER

Proposal: Application under s.211 for works to trees in a conservation area to include: T1 - Group of mixed species trees - Raise all crowns to 3.5 m from ground level, cut back and remove dead wood T2 -Group of mixed species trees and shrubs - Raise all crowns to 3.5 m from ground level, cut back and remove dead wood. Reduce height of the shrubs down to 1.2 m from ground level T3 - Group of mixed species trees and shrubs - Raise all crowns to 3.5 m from ground level, cut back and remove dead wood. Reduce height of the shrubs down to 1.2 m from ground level T4 - 1 x Prunus - Raise crown to 3 m from ground level and remove major dead wood Location: Coop Foods, 18 Station Road, Kirton, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE20 1EE

Applicant: Ms Kirsty Cobb, Mitie Landscapes Ltd

Decision: GRANT Decision 21-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Kirton Parish Council

Application B/16/0335 Case Stuart Thomsett Number: Officer: ………………………………………………………………………………………...... Proposal: Proposed new farm access to serve Bridge Farm Location: Bridge Farm, Main Road, Swineshead Bridge, Swineshead, PE20 3PT

Applicant: Haverholme Farm Partnership

Decision: GRANT Decision 21-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Swineshead Parish Council

Application B/16/0312 Case Stuart Thomsett Number: Officer: ………………………………………………………………………………………......

Page 31

Proposal: Development to erect a new grain store building Location: Beech House Farm, Main Road, Langrick, PE22 7AW

Applicant: Lincolnshire County Council

Decision: GRANT Decision 21-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish:

Application B/16/0310 Case Trevor Thompson Number: Officer: ………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Advertisement consent for 10no. window signs Location: Korzinka, 30 Field Street, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 6TR

Applicant: Mr s Dogan

Decision: GRANT Decision 19-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Boston Town Area Committee

Application B/16/0294 Case Stuart Thomsett Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Application for works to trees protected by TPO no. 5 Swineshead to include removal of dead wood, shorten branches and lower by 5m Location: Station Road/Coles Lane, Swineshead, Lincolnshire

Applicant: Mrs N Grant John Butler Charity

Decision: GRANT Decision 21-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Swineshead Parish Council

Application B/16/0292 Case Stuart Thomsett Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Page 32

Proposal: Replacement of front first floor original sash windows with wooden framed double glazed sash windows Location: 4, Thorold Street, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 6PH

Applicant: Mrs Helen Palmer

Decision: GRANT Decision 19-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Boston Town Area Committee

Application B/16/0291 Case Stuart Thomsett Number: Officer: ………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Request for a scoping opinion under Regulation 13 of The Town & Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2011 in respect of the Viking Link Interconnector from the Lincolnshire Coast to Bicker Fen NGET Substation Location: Land between Langrick Bridge and Bicker Fen

Applicant: Liz Wells, VikingLink (National Grid)

Decision: EIA Development Decision 31-Aug-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish:

Application PRE/16/0001 Case Paul Edwards Number: Officer: ………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Application for retrospective planning permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension Location: 175 Fairfax House, Ralphs Lane, Kirton End, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE20 1RQ

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Lee Orrey

Decision: GRANT Decision 21-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Kirton Parish Council

Application B/16/0284 Case Stuart Thomsett Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Page 33 Proposal: Application for Listed Building Consent for demolition of part of boundary wall shared with The Witham Tavern Location: 5 7, Witham Bank East, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 9JU

Applicant: Mr O Tookman Grand Gables Ltd

Decision: GRANT Decision 21-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Boston Town Area Committee

Application B/16/0283 Case Trevor Thompson Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Change of use from agricultural store to form extension to existing game handling facility Location: The Lincolnshire Game Company, The Steyning, Steyning Lane, Swineshead, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE20 3NQ

Applicant: Mr Tristan Kirk, Lincolnshire Game

Decision: GRANT Decision 09-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Swineshead Parish Council

Application B/16/0280 Case Trevor Thompson Number: Officer: ………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Application to carry out alterations to the roof, add additional windows and re-site the external door Location: 52, Thorold Street, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 6PH

Applicant: Mr John Bird

Decision: GRANT Decision 20-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Boston Town Area Committee

Application B/16/0277 Case Stuart Thomsett Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Page 34 Proposal: Application under s.73a for the variation of condition 4 on planning approval B/14/0433 (Erection of two dwellings (outline). Consideration given to access with matters relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for later approval) and condition 1 attached to approval of reserved matters ref; B/15/0152 for the erection of two dwellings. These amendments relate to flood risk mitigation measures and alterations to the design of the houses and land levels to accommodate these revisions Location: Church Road, Freiston, Boston, Lincs

Applicant: Richard Reed Builders Ltd

Decision: GRANT Decision 09-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Freiston Parish Council

Application B/16/0276 Case Trevor Thompson Number: Officer: ……………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Application under s.73a for the variation of condition 4 on planning approval B/15/0275 (Outline application for 5No. 2 storey dwellings with all matters reserved for later approval) and condition 1 attached to approval of reserved matters ref; B/16/0065 (for the erection of 5no. two storey dwellings plus installation of new access and 2no. detached garages). These amendments relate to flood risk mitigation measures and the addition of a rear extension to plot 4 Location: Church Road, Freiston, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE22 0NX

Applicant: Richard Reed Builders (Ltd)

Decision: GRANT Decision 09-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Freiston Parish Council

Application B/16/0275 Case Trevor Thompson Number: Officer: ………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Application for works to trees covered by Tree Preservation Order Sutterton No2. (T19); Sycamore (T1) 25% (4m) crown reduction Location: 12, Churchgate, Sutterton, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE20 2NS

Applicant: Mrs Fitzjohn

Decision: GRANT Decision 20-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Sutterton Parish Council

Page 35 Application B/16/0271 Case Stuart Thomsett Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Single storey rear and side extension (wraparound) Location: 12, Park Road, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 7JP

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Smith

Decision: GRANT Decision 07-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Boston Town Area Committee

Application B/16/0270 Case Stuart Thomsett Number: Officer: ………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Application for a sectional double garage Location: Halls Cottage, Lineside, Amber Hill, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE20 3QX

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Graham and Jill Lawley

Decision: GRANT Decision 02-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Amber Hill Parish Council

Application B/16/0265 Case Stuart Thomsett Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Proposed foul effluent tank and storage container within existing treatment plant Location: Bakkavor- Cucina Sano, Laburnum Farm, Chapel Road, Old Leake, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE22 9PN

Applicant: Bakkavor- Cucina Sano

Decision: GRANT Decision 05-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Old Leake Parish Council

Application B/16/0264 Case Stuart Thomsett Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Page 36 Proposal: Demolition of lean-to and conversion of barns and associated land to residential use Location: Taylor's Yard, Kirton Drove, Kirton Fen, Boston, Lincolnshire, LN4 4QN

Applicant: Mr Robert Mastin

Decision: GRANT Decision 08-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Brothertoft Parish Council

Application B/16/0259 Case Stuart Thomsett Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Conversion of Barns to form 2 dwellings Location: Holland House Farm, Kirton Drove, Kirton Fen, Boston, Lincolnshire, LN4 4QN

Applicant: Mrs Carol Thomson

Decision: GRANT Decision 21-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Brothertoft Parish Council

Application B/16/0256 Case Trevor Thompson Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Proposed two storey and single storey side extensions Location: Rose Lodge, Tattershall Road, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 9LR

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Julian Vines

Decision: GRANT Decision 20-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Boston Town Area Committee

Application B/16/0249 Case Stuart Thomsett Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Page 37

Proposal: Remove roof and erection of first floor extension and conversion of garage Location: 101, Ivy Crescent, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 8BP

Applicant: Miss C, Stanney

Decision: GRANT Decision 02-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Boston Town Area Committee

Application B/16/0246 Case Stuart Thomsett Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Proposed two storey and single storey rear extensions Location: Jasmine House, Asperton Road, Wigtoft, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE20 2PJ

Applicant: Mr Simon Collingwood

Decision: GRANT Decision 05-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Wigtoft Parish Council

Application B/16/0244 Case Stuart Thomsett Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Erection of a single storey extension to form a staff welfare block Location: ALDI, Queen Street, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 8XZ

Applicant: Aldi Stores Ltd

Decision: GRANT Decision 07-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Boston Town Area Committee

Application B/16/0242 Case Trevor Thompson Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Page 38

Proposal: Change of use of ground floor of public house (Class A4) to a mixed use to be used for any one of the following uses; A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (restaurants and Cafes), A5 (hot food takeaway), B1 (business) and D1 (Non-residential institutions) Location: 23 THE BOSTON STILL, Market Place, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 6EH

Applicant: Mr M, Azam

Decision: GRANT Decision 07-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Boston Town Area Committee

Application B/16/0240 Case Trevor Thompson Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Erection of 1no. 4 bed dwelling including double garage and new vehicular access Location: Land adjacent to 169 Swineshead Road, Frampton Fen, Lincolnshire

Applicant: Miss Caroline Clarke, Lincs Property Ltd

Decision: GRANT Decision 21-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Frampton Parish Council

Application B/16/0230 Case John Taylor Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Proposed front and side extension to existing facility to accommodate Nerf Centre, climbing wall and soft play area. Creation of new vehicular access and revised car parking layout Location: BOSTON BOWL, Rochford Tower Lane, Fishtoft, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 9RH

Applicant: Mr M, Leggate

Decision: GRANT Decision 14-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Fishtoft Parish Council

Application B/16/0229 Case Stuart Thomsett Number: Officer:

Page 39 ………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Demolition of existing offices and store and erection of a new Office Block and Packaging Building Location: Freshtime, Marsh Lane, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 7SZ

Applicant: Mr Paul Faulkner, Freshtime

Decision: GRANT Decision 02-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Boston Town Area Committee

Application B/16/0226 Case Trevor Thompson Number: Officer: ………………………………………………………………………………………...... Proposal: Listed building consent to facilitate conversion of nightclub to a mixed use of shops (use class A1) at ground flood and 11no. 1 and 2 bedroom flats on the upper floors. The replacement of the existing brick facades on the ground floor with new period detail shop fronts, the replacement of the existing windows with sliding sash pattern windows, and the development, alteration and extension of the upper floors to form eleven new flats, including general renovation of the property Location: Former nightclub, 23 25 High Street, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 8SH

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Edney Stump Developments Limited

Decision: GRANT Decision 21-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Boston Town Area Committee

Application B/16/0215 Case John Taylor Number: Officer: ………………………………………………………………………………………...... Proposal: Erection of 2No. blocks of 3No. dwelling houses, 1 pair of semi detached dwellings and associated access roads, parking courts and landscaping (8 two storey dwellings in total) Location: Land north of, Broadfield Lane (East of Friars Gate), Boston, Lincs

Applicant: Mr P, White

Decision: GRANT Decision 19-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Boston Town Area Committee

Application B/16/0171 Case John Taylor Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Page 40 Proposal: Application for relevant demolition and erection of an extension to form additional changing area and kitchen Location: 13, Witham Bank West, Boston, PE21 8PU

Applicant: Mr Simon Filmore

Decision: GRANT Decision 20-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Boston Town Area Committee

Application B/16/0164 Case Shaun Robson Number: Officer: ………………………………………………………………………………………......

Proposal: Proposed extension to garage at front of dwelling and new front boundary wall Location: The Lodge, Thorniman Lane, Frampton, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE20 1AJ

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Hammond

Decision: GRANT Decision 08-Sep-2016 Date: Reason for refusal (if applicable): Parish: Frampton Parish Council

Application B/16/0019 Case John Taylor Number: Officer:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank