S/029/01208/23: 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 & Mrs Firth

Location:                       The Paddock, Main Road, New Bolingbroke, Boston

Recommendation:           Refusal

Officer:                          Kelly Grunnill

Application Type:         Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                     Planning Permission - Erection of a bungalow.

Location:                      THE PADDOCK, MAIN ROAD, NEW BOLINGBROKE, BOSTON, PE22 7LN

Applicant:                    Mr & Mrs Firth

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission - Erection of

a bungalow at The Paddock, Main Road, New Bolingbroke, Boston, PE22

7LN.

The application was called into Planning Committee by the Local Ward Member Councillor Neil Jones if recommended for refusal, for the following reasons:

• The infill Bungalow was required for the applicant’s elderly mother so she may move closer to her son.

• This was infill in a village which required development to survive.
• There were no objections from neighbours and it was supported by the Parish Council.

• It was a medium sized village which had just appointed a Mayor.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

• Principle of the development and whether the site was a suitable location for housing having regard to flood risk.
• Impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

• Residential amenity.
• Highway safety.

Michelle Walker, Deputy Development Manager, detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, pages 57 to 58 of the report refer.

Councillor Neil Jones spoke as Ward Member.

Members were invited to put their questions to the speakers.

A Member queried why the application submitted was for a 3-bedroom house and not an annex.  Councillor Neil Jones responded that the mother of the applicant would like her own independence and would be cared for by her family next door. 

N.B. Councillor Neil Jones left the Meeting at 11.30am

Following which, the application was opened for debate. 

-      A Member commented that there was a flood risk element and queried whether there were other elements in the application that the officer was objecting to.  Clarification was further sought whether there was a policy that related to accommodation being built in order to care for a relative.

The Deputy Development Manager explained that there was nothing in the report to confirm that the relative would be living in the property when built and confirmed that it was classed as an open market dwelling.

-      Following a further query with regards to the type of policy the build would fall under, the Development Management Lead Officer advised Members that he was not aware of a policy specific to that situation.

-      A Member highlighted that the only reason set out for refusal was that the application was in a Flood Risk Zone 3. Therefore, with a 1% chance of flooding in any year it was considered that it made no sense to refuse the application.

The Development Management Lead Officer confirmed that the flood risk was the only reason for refusal and went on to explain to Members the process around the sequential and exceptions tests which needed to be undertaken as per the Local Plan and national policy.  He highlighted that the application had not passed the first two parts of the sequential and exceptions tests.

-      A Member queried whether New Bolingbroke had exceeded its infill rate, to which the Development Management Lead Officer responded that it had not.

-      Clarification was requested whether the recommendation would have been different if the application was submitted for an annex, rather than a separate dwelling.  The Development Management Lead Officer responded that an annex would have been given different consideration.

-      A Member queried with regards to the flood risk, why the applicant would want to go ahead with the application if this would put his mother in a dangerous situation.

Following which, the application was proposed for approval against officer recommendation.

-      Members commented that they did not consider that the proposed dwelling was modest and understood that the applicants had opted for a 3-bedroom property as they were looking to the future and the possibility of selling it.

-      A Member added that as the proposed dwelling was a separate building they would be supporting the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

Following which, the application was Proposed and Seconded for refusal in line with officer recommendation.

The application was seconded for approval against officer recommendation with the reasons given that flooding had not been a major issue in the past and the applicants had mitigated against any flooding by raising the floor level

At the request of one of the Members, the Development Management Lead Officer explained the outcome of a previous application that related to SP9 (Single Plot Exceptions) in the Local Plan, which would support single plot development for affordable housing provided it met a set criteria, and why it would not apply to the proposed application. 

Phil Norman, Assistant Director Planning and Strategic Infrastructure, addressed Members and advised them that Planning officers took a policy led approach to decision making and had to make the decision with the evidence and information put before them.

Upon being put to the vote for approval, against officer recommendation

Vote:         4 In favour            8 Against              0 Abstention 

Upon being put to the vote for refusal in line with officer recommendation

Vote:         9 In favour            2 Against              1 Abstention 

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused.