Agenda item

Proposal: Erection of twelve self-contained flats with associated hard and soft landscaping, cycle and bin storage and detached storage building

Location: Land Off Burghley Street, Bourne

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement

 

Proposal: Erection of twelve self-contained flats with associated hard and soft landscaping, cycle and bin storage and detached storage building

Location: Land Off Burghley Street, Bourne

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement

 

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

 

District Councillor          Councillor Anna Kelly

                                      Councillor Helen Crawford – Statement read out

Applicant’s Agent          Jason Murray

 

Together with:

 

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036 and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven and Bourne Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan.

·       Comment received from Environmental Protection Services (SKDC).

·       Comments received from LCC Highways & SuDS Support.

·       Comments received from NHS Lincolnshire Integrated Care Board.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue.

·       Comments received from Anglian Water.

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       No comments received from Historic England.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Education).

·       Comments received from Bourne Town Council.

·       Comments received from Conservation Officer.

·       Comments received from Affordable Housing.

 

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on the following:

 

(Councillor Paul Fellows declared he was a Member of Bourne Town Council, however, he had not participated or voted in any decisions on the application and came to the meeting with an open mind).

 

·       Whether the Applicant’s agent was concerned about the egress and entry to the site.

 

The access to the site was substandard as Highways had pointed out. The current use of the site (13 garages) were used by local residents in the area due to limited on-street parking. It was stated that no reported accidents had taken place in the past 27 years when the site was being used as garages.

 

·       Concern was raised around delivery vans entering and leaving the site alongside the inability of a fire engine being able to access the site.

 

The fallback position advised by fire and rescue was the use of sprinklers in the proposed properties. It was noted that several fire engines could access the road parallel to the development.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth confirmed comments received from the fire brigade were all matters that were covered by the building regulations. This would come under a separate consenting regime that the developer, if approved, would need to follow.

 

The Committee were reassured that the Council had enforcement powers to provide stop notices, if a developer started building without meeting building control legislation.

 

·       Concern was raised that sprinkler systems were not infallible and required water pressure, regular maintenance, management and control. It was queried what further measures would be put into place to ensure the sprinkler systems did not fail.

 

The agent clarified a fire engine would be able to access land to the North of the site via the parallel road in the event of an emergency.

 

·       One Member suggested the possible use of fire hydrants for the site.

·       Specific concern was raised on safety of pedestrians. A query was raised on the distance from the front door of Block B to the road and distance from the backdoors to the boundary.

·       Whether the site had any proposed safety at night in regard to illumination of front doors opening onto the road.

 

The Senior Planning Officer clarified the depth of the rear garden of Block B was 2.2 metres. The front elevation to the beer garden to the south was 3.9 metres, with a pathway immediately around the doorways that was scaled to approximately 0.5 metres.

 

The proposed lighting scheme met required standards and regulations. A condition could be added on lighting, if the Committee wished to do so.

 

The submitted hard landscaping for the site proposed that the parking areas and access would be block paved. There was no scope for any footpath.

 

·       Whether any visual aids were proposed to put on the opposite side of road to assist vehicles egressing the site and have sight of emerging traffic.

 

The agent was open to suggestions and recommendations of traffic mirrors and calming measures.

 

During questions to officers and debate, Members commented on the following:

 

·       Further concern was raised in relation to fires and whether people would be able to be rescued from a burning building, in the event of a fire.

 

Fire safety and rescue was fully covered by building regulations and the Committee should be satisfied that a solution would be resolved through the building regulations. Document B required fire tenders to get within 45 metres of a building.

 

·       It was noted the fire brigade had stated fire safety failed to meet minimum standards and sprinkler systems should be mitigated. It was queried whether sprinklers could be condition and how the Council could enforce it post occupation.

·       Further concern was raised on the substandard access and visibility between 9 and 11 Burghley Street, it was felt mitigation was needed for pedestrian and vehicle safety.

 

(It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to extend the meeting to 17:00).

 

·       Further concern of overdevelopment was raised. Members agreed that the site did need developing, however, on a smaller scale. 

 

Final Decision:

 

It was proposed and seconded to REFUSE the application for the following reason:

 

The proposed site layout would appear cramped and contrived resulting in an unacceptable risk of conflict between vehicular access and pedestrian movements leading to a risk of safety for all users contrary to Policy DE1 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

 

The development proposed would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole, and material considerations are insufficient to indicate that the decisions should be otherwise than in accordance with it, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the Framework.