S/183/01958/23: View the Plans and documents online, please click on the Application Number.  (Please note: If viewing as a pdf document, this hyperlink is not available).

 

Applicant:                          Mr M Hall

 

Location:                           Mill Farm, Leagate Road, Gipsey Bridge, Boston, PE22 7DA

 

Recommendation:              Approval with Conditions

 

Officer:                              Jane Baker

N.B.  Councillors Alex Hall and Neil Jones left the Meeting at 11:30am.

 

Application Type:         Full Planning Permission  

 

Proposal:                     Planning Permission – Erection of 2 no. dwellings.

 

Location:                      MILL FARM, LEAGATE ROAD, GIPSEY BRIDGE, BOSTON, PE22 7DA

 

Applicant:                    Mr M Hall

 

The application was referred to Planning Committee for reasons of

transparency because the applicant was a close relative of a District Councillor, Councillor Alex Hall.

 

The main planning issues were considered to be:

 

·       Principle of development when considering local and

national policy;

·       Fallback position;

·       Impact on character of area;

·       Impact on neighbours;

·       Flood risk and the Planning Balance;

·       Legal matters.

 

Members were referred to the additional information contained on pages 1 and 2 of the Supplementary Agenda.

 

The Legal Representative substantiated the addendum to Members and explained that there was a prior approval in place for three dwellings and that Committee was now considering a planning application for two dwellings.  The legal test was whether there was a betterment in planning terms in approving the planning application for two dwellings, and effectively replacing the prior approval permission that existed for three dwellings.

 

Further to a query from a Member, the Legal Representative provided an explanation on the term ‘unilateral undertaking’, following which the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that this had been received and was being checked as part of the process for the application.

 

Jane Baker, Senior Planning Officer detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, page 33 of the report refers.

 

Mr Giles Crust spoke in support of the application.

 

Councillor Neil Jones spoke as Ward Member.

 

Members were invited to put their questions to the speakers.

 

• A Member queried what was going to happen to the third remaining barn that was now not part of the planning application.  Mr Crust advised that the intention was for it to be used as garages or a workshop for the house and this would be re-cladded so that its’ presence was less prominent.

 

• A Member queried the consequences should the unilateral undertaking be breached.

 

The Legal Representative advised that the unilateral undertaking existed in respect of the land as part of the application and if breached, it would be a planning enforcement matter.

 

• A Member queried how the third building would be accessed if it was to be used as a garage.  Mr Crust advised that access would be built into the building.

 

• A Member referred to Paragraph 7.13, whereby the applicant had suggested that the current proposal would represent a betterment and queried what this covered.  Mr Crust advised that it included the drainage, flood risk, 2 solar panels instead of 1 and a house built to greater thermal conditions.  He further commented that you could not achieve that with a conversion, only in a new house.

 

N.B.  Councillor Neil Jones left the Meeting at 11:49am.

 

Following which, the application was opened for debate.

 

• A Member stated that the supplementary information that accompanied the report was 7 years old and contained no facts to say why it had been approved at appeal. 

 

Following which, the application was proposed for refusal on the

grounds of harm to the character of the area, flood risk and being in the

open countryside, outside of a recognised settlement with no footpath or

public transport links.

 

The Legal Representative explained to Members that the precedent caselaw being cited was not a Planning Inspectorate  appeal decision but was a court decision which maintained good law and in relation to whether there was a betterment for approving the new development proposal -  the legal test was the betterment.

 

• A Member stated that building two houses higher up and with the reduction in the number of houses was a betterment.

 

Following which, the application was proposed and seconded for approval in line with officer recommendation.

 

• A Member agreed with the betterment reasons put forward, however was concerned with the flood risk and queried whether there was sufficient mitigation within the plans to take account of the risk of flooding.

 

The Development Management Lead Officer referred Members to Condition 7, page 44 of the report refers, relating to the submitted flood risk assessment and advised Members that this was acceptable by the relevant bodies consulted.

 

• A Member queried whether the additional hardstanding that would be built around the barn had been mitigated with regards to flooding.

 

The Development Management Lead Officer advised that it would be possible to remove permitted development rights on the barn to safeguard against this, either by condition or through incorporating this in the unilateral undertaking that was being prepared.

 

• A Member commented that the owner of the house would most likely use the barn for a car, therefore to include it as ancillary use to the house would make sense. 

 

• A Member observed that further to the addendum and the planning application for two dwellings, the development of the two new houses appeared to be bigger than the original three houses and queried whether this was actually a betterment.

 

The Development Management Lead Officer confirmed that the footprint for the two new buildings was bigger, however the betterment was related to the reduction of households.

 

Upon being put to the vote for approval, the vote was carried with a condition added that the third building (barn) could only be used for ancillary use to the house and not for business use.

 

Vote:           7 In favour            1 Against              0 Abstentions 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Full Planning Permission be approved with the following conditions:

 

$$

 

N.B.  Councillors Alex Hall and Neil Jones returned to the Meeting at 12:08pm.