The Development Control Manager advised that:

1. approval was being sought for the confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order at Carline Road, Lincoln
    
2. the trees were identified as six  Lime Trees and two Maple trees which are located in the footpath on Carline Road, adjacent to the Manor Crest Development Site, within an area designated a Conservation Area
    
3. under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 , a requirement existed for anyone proposing to cut down or carry out work to a tree not subject to a TPO in a conservation area to give six weeks prior notice to Planning Committee; an application had been made to this authority as reported to Planning Committee on 3 February 2010, to remove existing street trees on Carline Road and replace with new semi-mature specimens in purpose made tree pits
    
4. Members had made the decision to make the trees the subject to a TPO to provide long term protection of the trees and amenity of the street scene in an important Conservation Area
    
5. the owner and all neighbours sharing a common boundary had been informed of the Councils intentions
    
6. two objections had been  received in relation to the making of the Tree Preservation Order, one from the County Council as owner of the trees and the second from Manor Crest Homes, as detailed within the report
    
7. after consideration of the objections, the  local planning authority was required to take one of the following actions:
   
   
   • to confirm the TPO either without modification or subject to 'such modifications as considered expedient', or
   • the local planning authority may decide not to confirm the TPO. 

RESOLVED that the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed without modification.

The Development Control Manager:

1. advised that this planning application was previously presented to Planning Committee in June 2010; at that time Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of an S106 agreement to control the occupation of the property
    
2. stated that the applicant had originally declined to enter into this agreement and the application had therefore been referred to tonight's meeting for further consideration by Planning Committee; however the applicant had today indicated that he was minded to sign an S106 agreement after all  and a revised recommendation was tabled at tonight's meeting accordingly, as part of the Update Sheet
    
3. referred to the main content of the previous report presented to Committee in June 2010 as follows:
   
   
   • the application proposed the use of this 2 storey outbuilding as a dwelling; the building was located within the rear garden of 32 Whitehall Grove, a substantial end of terrace dwelling, currently occupied by 6 people (students) living together as a household (C4)
   • the application to convert the outbuilding was retrospective, with the refurbishment works having been undertaken last year and the dwelling presently being occupied by one person
   • the 2 storey rear outbuilding was accessed via the side driveway through the large archway of the main dwelling from Whitehall Grove
   • the site was located just outside the West Parade and Brayford Conservation Area No 3
   • an objection had been received from Councillor Lee whom had also requested that the application be considered by Planning Committee rather than being determined under the scheme of delegation
   • details of the policy pertaining to the application were as follows:
     • PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development
     • PPS3: Housing
     • 34:Design and Amenity Standards
   • the Update Sheet provided additional information/photographs in relation to the application
   • the issues to be considered in respect of the application were:
     • Local and National Plan Policy
     • Residential Amenity
     • Visual Amenity
     • To assess as to whether the new dwelling successfully assimilates into the surrounding area.
   • Subject to the appropriate conditions, the proposed use of the outbuilding as a self contained dwelling would not be detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupants of adjacent dwellings or the visual amenity of the surrounding area; the proposal was in accordance with local and national planning policy.
   • Previous recommendation to grant conditionally subject to the signing of an s106 agreement for no student occupancy, removal  of permitted development for any extensions alterations or window additions, the dwelling shall be occupied by a maximum of 2 people and shall not be sold as a separate entity to No 32 Whitehall Grove
      
4. presented an addendum at the end of the previous report which dealt with changed circumstances since the original presentation to Planning Committee in June 2010 but prior to today's indication from the applicant that he was minded to sign an s106 agreement.
    
5. referred to tonight's Update Sheet (20/10/10) which contained further information in relation to the application, including objections from Councillor Karen Lee, West End Residents Association , 3 local residents, and a revised recommendation in light of today's developments 
    
6. advised that a letter of objection had been received from Councillor Heath this afternoon regarding an adverse impact on the amenity of local residents resulting from an unacceptable  balance of the proportion of students in the West End
    
7. requested the consideration of Planning Committee in respect of the following revised recommendation:

' That powers are delegated to the Development Control Manager to refuse the planning application as provided in the Committee agenda OR if the applicant signs the s106 agreement then planning permission is granted as Planning Committee's resolution in June 2010.'

Councillor Lee addressed the Committee as Ward Advocate and made the following points in relation to the application:

• She lived nearby to the application site
• She had taken legal advice; she did not have a conflict of interest in this matter
• She represented the residents in the area
• There were more1st year students in the local community than ever before
• Concerns in respect of litter, noise, disturbance - a local police inspector had observed this
• A survey in March 2009 showed that 59% of respondents had been affected by noise nuisance in the previous 6 months, particularly at weekends
• More students stayed around in the summer months rather than going home for their vacation
• There had been an increase in students holding summer garden parties - police had been involved
• The photographs within the report were proof of an accumulation of rubbish in the area
• Observations made by an objector in relation to parking issues pointed to 6 white vans in the area without a parking permit - only 3 per household were allowed
• Should the application be granted, there would be 8 students living in close vicinity; this was too many in one property
• Objectors had referred to a 'student ghetto' and stated that perhaps the remaining residents should leave while they could
• She had been the subject of noise nuisance emanating from the property at 3am in the morning
• She would not be beaten; she had the right to fight and defend the community she represented. 

Gary Hughes, local resident, addressed the Planning Committee on behalf of West End Residents Association in objection to the proposals, covering the following main points:

• He had received last minute representations
• West End Residents Association were not against students; they often helped them
• The group was in no way political but did cooperate with local councillors
• The University had confirmed it had an 'over supply' of 1,000 housing units in the City
• The police had said that the West End suffered more than the rest of the City in terms of anti social behaviour and noise nuisance
• We had moved into our back bedroom due to noise nuisance
• A lot of people felt the same
• The proposals were against Planning Policy Statement 1 and 59
• The Committee should consider taking the proposals back to Full Council to benefit from new powers from the Government to control HIMO's in order to achieve a balance of housing in the City.

Members discussed the application in further detail, and raised the following concerns:

• It was time to commission a new piece of work on the transient population in order to establish whether the amount of students in the area had increased or decreased; it was six years since the last survey was conducted.
• The Authority had dealt with issues from residents in respect of noise/rubbish and was trying to acquire more powers to hold landlords to account.
• The use of the word 'student' required a more specific definition; some mature students did have families and we would not want to discourage them from moving into the area.

The legal representative, City of Lincoln Council,  advised that powers existed to build  flexibility into an s106 agreement under a 'deed of variation';  judged on a 'case by case ' basis, to prevent family members who were also students from being prohibited from moving into the area.

The Development Control Manager advised that the Planning Authority would review the clause that currently defined a student following on from recent Government changes introduced.

One Member expressed the following views/comments

• The adverse impact on human rights of students and landlords in preventing accommodation being occupied by students
• The legality of whether 32A was a House in Multiple Accommodation (HIMO) as it was totally separate from No.32
• Emptying of bins was not a planning issue.

The Development Control Manager advised that the application at 32A Whitehall Grove was for a residential dwelling and not a HIMO.The reason for a s106 agreement in respect of the proposals was to control the occupancy of student houses in the area and protect the amenity of residents.

Members commented that each s106 agreement stood on its own merits, the previous application had been offered to the applicant and it was unfair to set a precedent to alter the original decision.

Following the above debate, It was moved, seconded, and:

RESOLVED that

1. Powers be delegated to the Development Control Manager to refuse the planning application as provided in the Committee agenda; OR
    
2. If the applicant was to sign the s106 agreement then planning permission be granted as Planning Committee's resolution in June 2010.