Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 20 May 2020 be confirmed.

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 Biff Bean declared a Personal and Pecuniary Interest with regard to the agenda item titled 'Application for Development: 86 Wolsey Way, Lincoln'.

Reason: He was known to agent of the proposed development. He left the room during the discussions on this item and took no part in the vote on the matter to be determined.

The Arboricultural Officer:

a.    advised members 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.

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

(Councillor C Burke joined the meeting late, arriving during the consideration of the following item. He took no part in the discussion or vote on the matter to be determined.)

The Assistant Director for Planning:

a.    reported that full planning permission was sought for the erection of 49 dwellings with vehicular access from Aldergrove Crescent and hard and soft landscaping

b.    described the application site area of 2.25 hectares which formed part of a larger green area known as Jasmin Green, land owned by the City of Lincoln Council, although agreement had been made through the City Council's Executive on 17th July 2017 to transfer the site to the applicant, Birchwood Area Community Land Trust Ltd, for development of the application site on behalf of Birchwood Big Local

c.    added that the land to be transferred would include the current application site and land further to the north of the application site, the remaining undeveloped land would stay as public open space with two areas intended for play space in a future proposal by Birchwood Big Local

d.    referred to a a previous extant outline planning permission on the site which granted consent with all matters reserved for 62 dwellings; the application was accompanied by an indicative site plan which showed access from Aldergrove Crescent and layout of 36 semi-detached and 2 detached single storey bungalows as well as a three storey building containing 24 apartments

e.    confirmed that the current application proposed 49 dwellings comprising of 28 bungalows, 5 dormer bungalows and 16 two storey houses as 100% affordable with some housing specifically for the over 55s, and as with the previous application, indicated two areas to the north of the site to be children's play areas

f.     reported that the detailed design of the play equipment would form a separate application when those proposals were finalised, the applicant had stated that ongoing rent from the proposed dwellings would contribute towards the long-term upkeep of the play equipment.

g.    described Birchwood Area Community Land Trust Limited as a non-profit organisation which owned and leased land and buildings on behalf of Birchwood Big Local and the Birchwood Community, The Board of Directors made up of local residents

h.    reported that the area of land subject to this application was partly allocated as a housing site and partly as Important Open Space within the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2017

i.      confirmed that community consultation by Birchwood Big Local had started in 2015 before the submission of the outline application, with a further consultation event held in March 2020 by Birchwood Big local in relation to the current proposals; the Planning Statement detailed all of the 24 comments received through pre-application consultation with a response to each comment

j.      provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:

·         Policy LP1     A Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

·         Policy LP2     The Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy

·         Policy LP3     Level and Distribution of Growth

·         Policy LP9     Health and Wellbeing

·         Policy LP12  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

(Councillor Bean left the room for the discussion on this item having declared a personal and pecuniary interest in the matter to be discussed. He took no part in the discussion or vote on the matter to be determined

(Councillor C Burke re-joined his seat as a member of Planning Committee for the remainder of the meeting).

The Planning Team Leader:

a.    reported that the application represented a resubmission of a previously approved planning application granted by Planning Committee in February 2020 (2019/0971/HOU) and now proposed a two storey front extension and single storey side extension to a two storey detached dwelling at 86 Wolsey Way

b.    detailed the amendments requested by the resubmitted application this evening to alter the approved proposal consisting of a bay window to the side elevation facing No. 84 Wolsey Way as well as a single storey extension to the opposite side, adjacent to the boundary with No. 92, with all other details remaining as previously approved

c.    highlighted that the application had been brought to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Jackie Kirk as Ward Councillor

d.    provided a full site history in relation to the application property as detailed within the officer’s report

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

·         Policy LP26   Design and Amenity

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

f.     advised members of the main issues to be considered as part of the application to assess the proposal with regard to:

·         Impact on Residential Amenity

·         Impact on Visual Amenity

·         Impact on Highway Safety

g.    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

h.    concluded that the resubmitted application incorporated minor alterations which, on balance, would not cause unacceptable harm to visual amenity, residential amenity or highway safety, in accordance with the relevant policies of the National Planning Policy Framework and Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Mr Ernie Thompson addressed Planning Committee in objection to the proposed development, covering the following main points:

·         He lived at the house next door to the application property.

·         He thanked Councillor J Kirk and Councillor Vaughan for their support in his objection to the planning application.

·         The report referred to the application property being in a cul-de-sac, whereas in reality it was in a private courtyard; No 82/84 shared a driveway and no 86 had its own.

·         Concerns were raised here again about the size of the development as was the case in 1985 when it was built.

·         The proposed side extension was closer to his boundary fence than permitted according to planning guidance.

·         The revised submission brought the distance of the proposed extension even closer to his habitable side of the property.

·         Policy LP26 referred to the amenities of existing and new occupants that they may expect to enjoy. He did not consider a wall blocking his daylight would be of any benefit.

·         The windows of his property affected by the proposed development may be obscure, however, daylight would be affected to his home from noon onwards.

·         A colony of bats in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

(Councillor B Bean re-joined his seat as a member of Planning Committee for the remainder of the meeting).

The Planning Team Leader:

a.    reported that planning permission was sought for the erection of a single storey rear extension to a two storey semi-detached dwelling with a detached garage at 4 Southland Drive,

b.    reported that the property had previously been extended to the side via an enclosed car port and pitched roof conservatory to the rear which would be partly removed to accommodate this proposal

c.    highlighted that the application had been brought to Planning Committee as the applicant was related to a member of staff working for the City of Lincoln Council

d.    provided a full site history in relation to the application property as detailed within the officer’s report

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

·         Policy LP26   Design and Amenity

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

f.     advised members of the main issues to be considered as part of the application to assess the proposal with regard to:

·         Local and National Planning Policy

·         Effect on Residential Amenity

·         Effect on Visual Amenity

·         Effect on Highway Safety

g.    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

h.    concluded that the proposed extension was appropriately designed and would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area nor the amenities of all existing and future occupants of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy LP26 ‘Design and Amenity’ of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (2017) and National Planning Policy Framework.

Mr John Staniforth addressed Planning Committee in objection to the application, covering the following main points:

·         He lived at the house next door to the application property.

·         He had concerns regarding the reconstruction of the boundary wall.

·         The foundations seemed to extend to his side of the property.

·         There was an issue with some of his own hedges/trees and bushes which would need to be removed to facilitate the extension.

·         The plans were not clear in terms of ascertaining how the build would be constructed without avoiding damage to his roof facia

·         This application represented a third resubmission of the plans.

·         Issues with loss of light.

Members raised questions in relation to the proposed scheme as follows:

·         Should this application be granted planning permission for a single storey rear extension would the extant planning permissions previously given stand or fall?

·         Could reassurance be given that there would be no damage caused during the build to the next door property?

·         Could officers give clarification as to the number of bushes/trees to be removed?

The Planning Team Leader provided the following response to the questions raised:

·         The drawings were in the curtilage of the applicant’s ownership, the project could only go ahead with agreement of the neighbour.

·         The Party Wall Act although beyond the scope of the planning application afforded mitigation rights to the neighbour.

·         The applicant had no right to go onto the neighbour’s property beyond his boundary or affect any bushes/trees.

·         The existing planning applications  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.