B/16/0013/FULL

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT SHEET

Application Ref No.: / B/16/0013/FULL / Case Officer: / Stuart Thomsett
Application Type: / Full Planning Permission
Proposal: / Erection of a single storey extension to form 2no. 2 bedroom flats
Location: / 25 Haven Bank, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 8SB
Statutory Expiry Date: / 02-Mar-2016

Delegated Application

Yes No
Objections and
likely to be approved / x /
Complete Delegated Report if no obj or objrec for refusal

Consult

/ Date standard letter sent or phone call made / Responded date / Initials / Ok to continue
YesNo
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Ward Councillor
Ward Councillor /
Complete Delegated Report
/
Complete Committee Report

Advisory letters to be attached to DN:

From: / Dated: / From: / Dated:
From: / Dated: / From: / Dated:
Interested Parties to be notified of decision (tick appropriate box) /

Yes:

/ x /

No:

Number:

/ 3 incl EA

Date Initials

File, Report, Drawings/Plans to DCS
/ 22.2.16 / SET

REASON FOR BEING OUT OF TIME ………………………………………

DELEGATED REPORT

1.0SITE

1.1The application site relates to 25 Haven Bank, Boston. The building has a single storey frontage to Haven Bank and two storey frontage with basement to Irby Street. This building received full planning permission to convert to 4 no. self-contained flats in 2014 and is part-way through that conversion. The external brick is red with a pitched roof clad in welsh slates and solar pv cells. At the north west side is a timber staircase leading to a door in the north west gable end (adj to No.26). At the south east side is a narrow passage which runs along the back wall of the garages. There is a static mobile caravan in front of the garages.

1.2A five-bay garage block is located at the south side of the building and projecting forward to Irby Street. The brickwork seems to be older than the doors and joinery and it may be that some recent upgrade/aleration has taken place. Adjacent to this is a hardsurfaced parking area.

1.3The site is located within the Boston Conservation Area. To be clear, not only is the main building being converted to 4 no. flats in the CA but so is the garage block to be demolished and the proposed extension to create two further flats.

1.4The site is located within a high flood risk area.

2.0PROPOSAL

2.1Demolish the existing garage block and construct a single storey extension to the main building to comprise 2 bedroom flats.

3.0RELEVANT HISTORY

3.1B/14/0048/CD1 – Details relating to condition 1 (materials) – approved.

3.2B/14/0048 -Application to vary condition 11 of application B/12/0103 (Conversion of existing building into four self contained flats, including insertion of roof lights and new windows) to retain existing floor levels and not reinstate chimney – approved.

3.3B/12/0103 - Conversion of existing building into four self contained flats, including insertion of roof lights and new windows – approved.

3.4B/99/0249 - Change of Use of disused warehouse/workshop into two residential units- withdrawn

3.5B06/0572/94 - Application for Change of Use and conversion of vacant depot to residential unit – granted

3.6B06/0573/94 - Application for Conservation Area Consent to demolish 2No. garages

3.7BB8/54 – Alterations to workshop –granted - no implemented

3.8BB/10/54 - Erection of garage accomodation – granted (no plans so not sure what was approved?).

4.0RELEVANT POLICY

4.1The adopted Boston Borough Local Plan (April 1999) shows this land as being within Boston’s ‘Built-up Area/Settlement Boundary’. The saved policies of particular relevance to this application are as follows:

  • Policy G1 – Amenity (This policy seeks to resist development that will harm the amenity of nearby residents or the general character of the area).
  • Policy G6 – Vehicular and Pedestrian Access (This policy seeks to resist development that would harm highway safety).
  • Policy G3- Surface and Foul Water Disposal (This policy seeks to resist developments that do not provide satisfactory drainage provision.
  • Policy H2 – Windfall Housing Development (This policy allows new housing schemes within urban areas subject to certain criteria being met relating to density, layout etc)
  • Policy H3 – Quality of Housing Developments (The objective of this policy is to improve the design of quality of new housing schemes).

National Planning Policy Framework

4.2The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 indicates that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF seeks the speedy approval of proposals that accord with the development plan and, where the plan is “absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date”, to grant permission unless the adverse impact would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits; or that policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

4.3The NPPF also states that ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered to be up-to-date if a five year supply cannot be demonstrated’ (NPPF, para 49). Thus, since the Borough cannot demonstrate a five year supply, any housing supply policies are considered out of date and therefore developments would be subject to paragraph 14 of the NPPF which provides a presumption in favour of such development, subject to criteria.

4.4Para. 50 requires local planning authorities to plan for “a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities……..)” Equally the Planning Practice Guidance provides further guidance on the links between health and wellbeing and planning and decision taking. It also emphasises the importance of local planning authorities working with health agencies to ensure that health and wellbeing is addressed in both plan making and decision taking.

4.5The NPPF emphasises the primacy of the development plan and states that it (the Framework) does not change the status afforded to the plan as the starting point for decision making (para 12). In effect there is a presumption to determine sustainable development in accordance with an up to date development plan.

4.6In addition, the NPPF (para 100) indicates that inappropriate development in areas of risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Para 103 adds that when determining planning applications LPAs should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site specific flood risk assessment following the sequential test, and if required the exceptions test, it can be demonstrated that, inter alia , development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes where required, and that any residual risk can be safely managed, including emergency planning and it gives priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems’

5.0REPRESENTATIONS

5.1Two letters of objection were received from the occupants of 24 and 24a Haven Bank, the adjacent properties. The letters raised the following concerns:

  • The applicant is selling cars from the property
  • Been cause to ring the Police, Fire Service and Council on numerous occasions
  • No more building work should go ahead
  • No parking facilities on site would impact on local area / residents
  • Increased noise levels
  • Increasing the height of the existing building would adversely affect the amount of light into 24 Haven Bank
  • 24 Haven Bank would be directly overlooked by 6 windows
  • No proposed waste storage which would increase the risk of vermin in the area

6.0RELEVANT CONSULTATIONS

6.1County Highways Authority does not wish to object to the proposed scheme.

6.2The Environment Agency wishes to object to the proposed scheme.

6.3BBC’s Consultant Architect did not wish to object to the proposed scheme save for some minor concerns regarding the possible reduction in the amount of light entering one of the flats contained in the main building, ‘the proposal will be an improvement on the existing and will not impact on any historic or listed structures’.

7.0PLANNING ISSUES AND DISCUSSION

7.1The proposed extension will be physically linked to the main building by means of a bin store. The extension will incorporate a 900mm floor raise to mitigate against flood risk but cannot incorporate a second floor refuge area due to the unacceptable impact that would haveupoon the quality of accommodation and levels of light enjoyed by the future occupants of the converted warehouse (main building). The building is accessed via an attractive curved set of brick built steps to a recessed doorway which opens into an entrance foyer and separate internal cycle store. Each flat has two bedrooms of acceptable size, a bathroom and open plan kitchen / diner / living room. The external appearance of the extension would match the main building, namely red bricks and slate roof tiles.

The key issues in regards to this proposal appear to be;

  • Principle of development
  • Design, size and scale of the development and its impact on the character and appearance of the area
  • Impact on neighbour’s amenity
  • Flood Risk
  • Highway safety and parking

Principle of development

7.2The site is located in a residential area within the settlement limit boundary of Boston close to the Town Centre and thus the area would normally be suitable for the principle of residential development. The principle is further strengthened by the fact that the site being garden / front driveway and is ‘previously developed’.

7.3Given that the Council acknowledges that it cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land supply the housing policies should be considered out of date in line with the guidance of the NPPF. Housing proposals on this site would be considered in the presumption in favour of sustainable development unless there are factors that outweigh this ‘presumption in favour’.

7.4In terms of allowing the principle of residential development on this site it is considered that the site is suitable for residential development subject to all other matters being acceptable.

Design, size and scale of the development and its impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

7.5The proposal seeks to clear the site of the 5-bay garage block and erect a single storey extension to the main building to form 2 no. two bedroom flats.

7.6The proposed single storey extension to the main building currently undergoing a conversion to 4 no. flats has been the subject of extensive pre-application discussions between the agent, applicant and LPA.

7.7 The majority of the advice has been heeded and incorporated into the scheme to provide a good quality scheme that has adopted a sensitive approach that will harmonise with the surrounding vernacular and be sympathetic to the CA in which it sits. In the event of an approval, this building would reflect the engineering history of the building it would be physically linked to whilst providing an internal layout which could produce a good quality of living accommodation for future occupants.

7.8In terms of design, size and scale of the development, the scheme as proposed here accords with policies contained within the development plan.

7.9Based on the size, scale and overall layout of the dwellings and taking into account the design aspects of the properties the proposal appears acceptable and is a form of development that will improve the appearance of this site through removing a rather unattractive building and replacing with a building of good design and appearance.

Impact on neighbour’s amenity

7.10In terms of the impact of the development on the immediate neighbours it would appear that the neighbouringproperties to the south east (24 and 24a Haven Bank) are unlikely to be significantly affected / “substantially harmed”( ALP Policy G1) by the proposed extension. The objections raised have been given due consideration in the determination of this application.

7.11Subject to a suitable condition that requires a particular form of fenestration and a boundary treatment on the southern boundary to reduce the likelihood of the six windows contained in this elevation of the proposed extension overlooking the adjoining property, the proposal appears to accord with Policy G1 of the Adopted Plan.

Flood Risk

7.12The EA has objected to the proposal and stated that their mapping shows the site is in a location where flood depths of 1.0 - 1.6m impact on the site when considering the 2115 0.5% and 0.1% breach scenarios. For this reason they suggest the FFLs should be set a minimum of 1.0m above ground level with flood resilient construction incorporated to a minimum height of 300mm above the predicted flood level and demountable defences to a height of 600mm should be installed on ground floor doorways.

7.13In circumstances such as this, when all other aspects of the proposed development are considered to be acceptable and compliant with policies contained in the development plan and national guidance, the LPA would enter into negotiations with the Environment Agency to try and resolve any concerns it has. However, during the determination for the conversion of the main building to 4 no. flats (application B/14/0048)*, the LPA, armed with local knowledge of the flood event of 5th December 2013 considered that development was safe in terms of flood risk as the overtopping of the River Haven resulted in water flowing straight off Haven Bank and “pooling” at the bottom end of Irby Street where this site is located. In other words, the main building was considered by the applicant and LPA to be in a safer location than it would appear but the properties situated downslope and at the north western end of Irby Street near the railway bridge were considered to be highly vulnerable to a flood event.

*’An objection has been received from the Environment Agency to the proposal not to implement the 900mm raise. However, as that raise would result in too low a ceiling height resulting in the project becoming unviable, it is considered that it is highly likely that this building would remain vacant for a very long time and fall into further disrepair. LPAs must balance the risk of flooding against many considerations and the use and future of this heritage asset must be given weight. Moreover, during the flooding event of 5th December 2013, the water that did overtop the river bank at this point ran down Haven Bank and Irby Street and did not enter the property due to the water flowing past the ground floor on Irby Street which is not to be used for habitable living accommodation. As a result of this objection, the Ward Member for Central as well as the Planning Committee Chair and VC were consulted. Delegated powers to approve the application were granted.’

7.14The “Flood Risk Assessment” submitted in support of this application constituted a one page document which was primarily an e-mail form an engineer at The Environment Agency confirming that the LPA’s analysis of the situation as described above is correct. Given the EA response I requested that the applicant submit an amended Flood Risk Assessment after discussing the issue with the Environment Agency.

7.15Telephone calls and e-mails were made and sent to the planning agent in order to discuss overcoming the EA’s concernsbut no reply was received. Therefore, as the risk of flooding to future occupants of buildings in this location has been demonstrated as recently as December 2013, the development cannot be considered acceptable in terms of flood risk and contrary to the guidance contained in the NPPF.

Highway safety and parking

7.16The CHA has assessed the proposal and does not raise any objections to the proposal:

‘Although there is no parking provision, the proposed development in relation to the proximity of the town centre, does offer potential for modes of travel other than the motor car. There are particularly good pedestrian and cycle links to encourage residents to make greater use of, including the local bus service and car park opposite and therefore this will not have an adverse effect on the Public Highway. Therefore, having given due regard to the appropriate local and national planning policy guidance (in particular the National Planning Policy Framework), Lincolnshire County Council (as Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority) has concluded that the proposed development is acceptable. Accordingly, Lincolnshire County Council (as Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority) does not wish to object to this planning application.’

Conclusion

7.17The proposed extension to the main building to create 2 no. two bedroom flats is within a highly sustainable location and within the settlement boundary of Boston. The proposed residential use accords with the surrounding residential use and the built form of the dwellings will reflect some of the history of the site whilst maintaining an acceptable relationship with the surrounding built form.

7.18However, the applicant has not submitted clear and convincing evidence that the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling will be safe in the event of a fluvial or tidal breach. It is therefore recommended that this application is refused for the following reason:

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE Planning Permission for the following reason(s):

  1. Insufficient information has been submitted which clearly demonstrates that the development and its future users will be safe over the lifetime of the development. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment does not provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risks resulting from this development. The application is therefore contrary to the objectives of the NPPF (2012) which seeks to ensure that inappropriate development in areas of risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The application therefore fails to meet the exception test as identified within the NPPF(2012).

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.

------

APPLICATION FILE TO BE ARCHIVED – YES