Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2023 be confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

An update sheet was circulated in relation to planning applications to be considered this evening, which included additional information for Members attention received after the original agenda documents had been published.

RESOLVED that the update sheet be received by Planning Committee.

Please note that, in accordance with the Members' Code of Conduct, when declaring interests members must disclose the existence and nature of the interest, and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) or personal and/or pecuniary.

Councillor Bob Bushell declared a Personal Interest with regard to the agenda item titled '28 Derwent Street, Lincoln'. Reason: He sat as a member of the Upper Witham Drainage Board.

He had duly considered whether this interest was a pecuniary interest under the Member Code of Conduct. When taking into consideration the reasonable member of the public test, as outlined in the Code of Conduct, and the assessment of how much this application would affect the Drainage Board, he did not consider that his interest was a pecuniary interest. He would therefore be participating in the meeting as a member of the Committee.

Councillor Debbie Armiger declared a Personal Interest with regard to the agenda item titled '28 Derwent Street, Lincoln'. Reason: She sat as a member of the Upper Witham Drainage Board.

She had duly considered whether this interest was a pecuniary interest under the Member Code of Conduct. When taking into consideration the reasonable member of the public test, as outlined in the Code of Conduct, and the assessment of how much this application would affect the Drainage Board, she did not consider that his interest was a pecuniary interest. She would therefore be participating in the meeting as a member of the Committee.

Councillor Gary Hewson declared a Personal Interest with regard to the agenda item titled '28 Derwent Street, Lincoln'. Reason: He sat as a member of the Upper Witham Drainage Board.

He had duly considered whether this interest was a pecuniary interest under the Member Code of Conduct. When taking into consideration the reasonable member of the public test, as outlined in the Code of Conduct, and the assessment of how much this application would affect the Drainage Board, he did not consider that his interest was a pecuniary interest. He would therefore be participating in the meeting as a member of the Committee.

Councillor Liz Bushell declared a Personal Interest with regard to the agenda item titled '28 Derwent Street, Lincoln'. Reason: She sat as a member of the Upper Witham Drainage Board.

She had duly considered whether this interest was a pecuniary interest under the Member Code of Conduct. When taking into consideration the reasonable member of the public test, as outlined in the Code of Conduct, and the assessment of how much this application would affect the Drainage Board, she did not consider that her interest was a pecuniary interest. She would therefore be participating in the meeting as a member of the Committee.

Councillor Pat Vaughan declared a Personal Interest with regard to the agenda item titled '28 Derwent Street, Lincoln'. Reason: He sat as a member of the Upper Witham Drainage Board.

He had duly considered whether this interest was a pecuniary interest under the Member Code of Conduct. When taking into consideration the reasonable member of the public test, as outlined in the Code of Conduct, and the assessment of how much this application would affect the Drainage Board, he did not consider that his interest was a pecuniary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

Lee George, Open Spaces Officer:

a)    advised Planning Committee of the reasons for proposed works to trees in the City Council's ownership and sought consent to progress the works identified, as detailed at Appendix A of his report

b)    highlighted that the list did not represent all the work undertaken to Council trees, it represented all the instances where a tree was either identified for removal, or where a tree enjoyed some element of protection under planning legislation, and thus formal consent was required

c)    explained that ward councillors had been notified of the proposed works.

Members asked whether the recent strong windy weather had a financial impact on the budget of the Council.

Lee George, Open Spaces Officer confirmed that an unstable elm tree on Monks Road today had caused road closures and staff/contractors had been on site for the whole day. This affected the budget allocated to him as Open Spaces Officer. Another tree on Sunningdale Drive had been made safe which came under the remit of the County Council as Highways Authority. The budget was also monitored by our Finance Team.

RESOLVED that the tree works set out in the schedules appended to the report be approved.

Simon Cousins, Planning Team Leader:

1. advised members of the reasons why a temporary tree preservation order made under delegated powers by the Assistant Director for Planning should be confirmed at the following site:

2. provided details of the individual tree to be covered by the order and the contribution it made to the area

3. reported that the making of any Tree Preservation Order was likely to result in further demands on staff time to deal with any applications submitted for consent to carry out tree work and to provide advice and assistance to owners and others regarding protected trees, however, this was contained within existing staffing resources

4. reported that the initial 6 months of protection for this tree would come to an end for the Tree Preservation Order on 16 February 2024

5. confirmed that the reason for making a Tree Preservation Order on this site was as a result of an application from the owners of 11 Cross O’Cliff Hill to fell the tree

6. reported that the property was located within a Conservation Area which was the reason why consent was required

7. reported that the Arboricultural Officer’s site visit identified the tree to be suitable for protection under a Tree Preservation Order, having a high amenity value, and that its removal would have a harmful effect on the aesthetic appearance of the area

8. advised that consultation had been carried out with the landowner as well as with neighbouring properties who may have an interest in this matter, resulting in 3 objections received from:

9. added that a letter of support had been received from:

10. reported that the primary concerns raised within the 3 letters of objection related to alleged damage to an adjacent boundary wall, nearby drains, driveways and guttering and concerns about the general health of the tree following limb breakages

11. advised that following an external inspection of the tree on site, our Arboricultural Officer found no current or clear signs of dieback or failure and as such requested the temporary Tree Preservation Order to allow for further analysis of the health and integrity of the tree

12. referred to photographs submitted with the letters of objection as detailed within the appendices to the officers report which did show cracks to the adjacent boundary wall, however despite a request, no evidence of the alleged drainage damage, nor a PICUS tomograph to assess the integrity of the tree had been provided by the landowner, apparently due to the cost involved

13. highlighted that the landowner did not disagree that the tree had a significant positive impact on the visual amenity of the area, however the request to fell the tree was made to mitigate alleged damage being done to neighbouring properties  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

Simon Cousins, Planning Team Leader:

1. advised members of the reasons why a temporary tree preservation order made under delegated powers by the Assistant Director for Planning should be confirmed at the following site:

2. provided details of the individual tree to be covered by the order and the contribution it made to the area

3. reported that the making of any Tree Preservation Order was likely to result in further demands on staff time to deal with any applications submitted for consent to carry out tree work and to provide advice and assistance to owners and others regarding protected trees, however, this was contained within existing staffing resources

4. reported that the initial 6 months of protection for this tree would come to an end for the Tree Preservation Order on 28 March 2024

5. confirmed that the reason for making a Tree Preservation Order on this site was as a result of an application to carry out extensive pruning works which would be well in excess of British Standard 3998

6. reported that the property was located within a Conservation Area which was the reason why consent was required

7. reported that during the application process, the Arboricultural Officer discussed the proposed work with the agent, who indicated their client would seek to remove the tree entirely should the extensive pruning work not be permitted, and on this basis a Tree Preservation Order was sought to protect the tree from being felled

8. advised that following a 7 week consultation period no objections had been received to the order

9. advised that confirmation of Tree Preservation Order 179 would ensure that the tree could not be removed or worked on without the express permission of the Council which would be considered detrimental to visual amenity and as such the protection of the tree would contribute to one of the Councils priorities of enhancing our remarkable place.

RESOLVED that Tree Preservation Order No 179 be confirmed without modification and that delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning to carry out the requisite procedures for confirmation.

The Planning Team Leader:

a)    advised that planning permission was sought for the conversion of a building to 6 apartments and erection of 3 dwellings (revised plans)

b)    described the application site previously forming the existing Post Office and Social Club associated car park and grounds, located on the corner of Dunkirk Road and Mons Road, with existing access taken from Mons Road

c)    advised that the site was surrounded by residential dwellings, with the existing table tennis club building positioned immediately to the north

d)    reported that the proposal had been subject to pre application advice and further officer discussions during the application process which had resulted in revisions to the original layout to accommodate further parking spaces following the initial response from Highways and local residents

e)    highlighted that whilst the revised scheme had altered the layout of the new build plots, the number and size of the dwellings remained as originally submitted, and further information had also been sought in relation to energy efficiency, landscaping and biodiversity net gain

f)     reported that the application had been brought to Planning Committee as it had received more than 4 objections as well as a request from Ward Councillor Nannestad following the initial round of consultation

g)    provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:

·         National Planning Policy Framework

·         Policy S1: The Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy

·         Policy S3: Housing in the Lincoln Urban Area, Main Towns and Market Towns

·         Policy S6: Design Principles for Efficient Buildings

·         Policy S7: Reducing Energy Consumption - Residential Development

·         Policy S13: Reducing Energy Consumption in Existing Buildings

·         Policy S49: Parking Provision

·         Policy S53: Design and Amenity

·         Policy S61: Biodiversity Opportunity and Delivering Measurable Net Gains

h)    provided details of the issues pertaining to the application, as follows:

·         Accordance with National and Local Planning Policy

·         Impact on Amenity of Neighbouring Uses and Future Occupiers of the Premises

·         Impact on Visual Amenity

·         Contaminated Land

·         Energy Efficiency

·         Landscaping and Biodiversity

·         Highway Safety, Access and Parking

i)     outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

j)     referred to the Update Sheet circulated at this evening’s Planning Committee which included an additional response received from an objector, and supporting photographs in respect of the proposed planning application

k)    concluded that:

·         The development would provide new sustainable and energy efficient housing stock on an existing brownfield site, converting an unused building and providing a number of new build units.

·         The proposals would be of a suitable size and scale commensurate to the locality and would not result in any undue harm to existing residents within the area.

·         The development would also create a net gain in biodiversity on site.

Rebecca Smith, local resident, addressed Planning Committee in objection to the proposed planning application, covering the following main points:

·         She had no objection in principle with the repurposing of the land.

·         The issue was the development of the existing car park and 3 houses, together with 3 car parking spaces.

·         The design and layout would have an impact  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52a

The Assistant Director of Planning:

a)    referred to a recent briefing note sent to all members for information which clarified the planning situation as it affected applications and associated works to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs)

b)    described the application property at 28 Derwent Street, a two storey mid-terraced dwelling

c)    advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of single- storey side and rear extension to the existing property

d)    reported that a certificate of existing lawfulness was granted this year for the continued use of the property as a Small House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) 2021/0060/CLE, allowing the dwelling to be occupied as a C4 HMO which permitted up to 6 individuals to live within the property

e)    advised that the application was brought before Planning Committee as it had been called in by Councillor Neil Murray

f)     provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

·         Policy S53: Design and Amenity

·         Policy S13: Reducing Energy Consumption in Buildings

g)    provided details of the issues to be assessed in relation to the planning application, as follows:

·         Accordance with National and Local Planning Policy

·         Impact on Residential Amenity

·         Impact on Visual Amenity

·         Highway Safety, Access and Parking

·         Reducing Energy Consumption

·         Other Matters

h)    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

i)     referred to the Update Sheet circulated at this evening’s Planning Committee which included an additional response received from Councillor Lucinda Preston in relation to the proposed planning application

j)     concluded that the proposals would not have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties or the visual amenity of the wider area, in accordance with policy S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Councillor Neil Murray addressed Planning Committee in his capacity as Ward Advocate in relation to the proposed planning application. He covered the following main points:

·         He had met local residents who had concerns about this planning application.

·         Residents had informed him there was no point attending Planning Committee as planning permission would go ahead anyway. He represented their views.

·         The proposed planning application was similar to previous ones submitted by the same applicant.

·         The proposals represented over development/loss of amenity for local residents.

·         Improvements in the community were important here, the same issue as Ward Advocates spoke to at the last Planning Committee.

·         Garden space was vital for people’s mental health/encouraging wild life/wellbeing.

·         Garden space protected the local environment.

·         Policy S25 referred to sub-division of dwellings which should contribute pleasantly to the local area and not increase the existing concentration.

·         This application represented over concentration of HiMO’s with virtually no garden area remaining.

·         The plans were contrary to the spirit of Article 4, and the position officers had taken in this regard

·         The applicant was in the habit of acquiring houses all over the city to maximise profit over amenity and community considerations.

·         Strictly on environmental concerns this application should be refused.

The Committee discussed the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52b

The Assistant Director of Planning:

a)    referred to the application property at 30 Whitehall Grove, a two storey terraced dwelling

b)    advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of single- storey side and rear extension to the existing property

c)    reported that the proposals had been revised at the request of the case officer to reduce the overall footprint and projection of the proposed development, to maintain an element of existing garden amenity space

d)    advised that the application was brought before Planning Committee as it had been called in by Councillor Neil Murray

e)    provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

·         Policy S53: Design and Amenity

f)     provided details of the issues to be assessed in relation to the planning application, as follows:

·         National and Local Planning Policy

·         Principle of the Development

·         Impact on the Amenity of Nearby Properties and Occupants of the Dwelling

·         Design and Impact on Visual Amenity

·         Highway Safety, Access and Parking

g)    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

h)    referred to the Update Sheet circulated at this evening’s Planning Committee which included an additional response received from Councillor Lucinda Preston in respect of the proposed planning application together with an objection from a local resident

i)     concluded that the proposals would not have a detrimental impact on the residential and visual amenity of neighbouring properties, nor the amenity of the occupiers of the host property, in accordance with policy S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Mr David Mitchell, local resident addressed Planning Committee in objection to the planning application, covering the following main points:

·         He was not here to interfere with the statutory planning process.

·         He asked that a decision on the planning application be deferred tonight, as per his e mail to Councillor B Bushell, Chair.

·         He lived at No 26 Whitehall Grove.

·         He wished it to be known there was a blatant disregard by the contractors of council rules.

·         Work had already started at the property on Monday 15 January 2024.

·         The whole house had been gutted.

·         The central chimney had been taken down and the back walls knocked through.

·         There was a rumour that a dormer window would be installed.

·         Whitehall Grove was frequently blocked by the contractors.

·         There were no statutory notices posted on the roadways.

·         The statutory notices were still posted on the premises at no 28 from the previous year.

·         Work had damaged his roof.

·         The windows were half obscured and there was no light. It was felt that the developer was riding roughshod over the City of Lincoln Council.

·         He urged the planning application be deferred for a site visit to make sure safe and legal working practices were being observed.

Councillor Neil Murray addressed Planning Committee in his capacity as Ward Advocate in relation to the proposed planning application. He covered the following main points:

·         The proposed planning application was another submitted by the same applicant.

·         The properties  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52c