Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 7 August 2024 be confirmed and signed by the Chair as a true record.

An update sheet was circulated to members of Planning Committee 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.

No declarations of interest were received.

(Please note that a revised ‘Works to Trees Schedule 5’ in relation to Item No 4 ‘Work to Trees’ was published separately from the main agenda for this meeting of Planning Committee to be held on Wednesday, 2nd October 2024 at 5.30 pm in Committee Rooms 1 and 2, City Hall, Beaumont Fee, Lincoln, LN1 1DD, which replaced the original version issued).

Tom Gissing, Arboricultural Officer:

a.    advised Planning Committee that the main purpose of his report provided reasons for proposed works to trees predominantly in the City Council's ownership, although it may include other trees at times where special circumstances applied and officers were both able to do so and thought it was helpful

b.    sought consent to progress the works identified, as detailed at Appendix A of his report

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

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

RESOLVED that the tree works set out in the revised schedule published separately to the report be approved.

The Planning Team Leader:

1. referred to the application premises, a two-storey semi-detached property located on Queen’s Crescent, previously used as a house in multiple occupation having been granted a Use Class C4

2. advised that planning permission was sought for change of use from Use Class C4 to a children’s home (Use Class C2)

3. highlighted that an application for the adjoining property (No.12) was recently granted planning permission for change of use to a children’s home under application 2024/0250/FUL

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

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

6. confirmed that the use of the property was required to be OFSTED registered and would offer accommodation for up to three children at any one time between the ages of 7 and 17

7. outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

8. referred to the Update Sheet circulated at the meeting which contained further responses received after the agenda bundle had been despatched

9. concluded that:

·      In planning terms, the proposal was for residential accommodation in a residential area, albeit for care purposes and as a business enterprise.

·      There were no planning policies which prevented such uses from being located within residential neighbourhoods, in fact policy resisted such uses in isolated locations.

·      In this case the number of children and the use could be controlled by conditions, therefore it was considered appropriate and compatible with the residential area.

·      The use, when appropriately managed, should not result in undue harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupants.

·      The LCC has raised no objections in terms of parking or impact upon highway safety.

·      Officers were therefore satisfied that the use would meet the requirements of CLLP Policies S2, S23 and S53 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Dr Mark Hanheide, local resident, addressed Planning Committee in objection to the proposed planning application. He covered the following main points:

• He spoke in objection to the proposed development on behalf of the community of Queen’s Crescent.
• The application threatened the very fabric of his community.
• The community had supported various changes to properties in the area, including HMO’s, flexible uses and extensions in order to embrace a diverse community, however this recent rapid intensification was unsustainable.
• A month after C2 use was approved for number 12, we now faced another application next door. Both applications had been staggered to obscure their true impact and to mislead the community.
• It seemed that our broken care system was being exploited for financial gain.
• He referred to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stating that developments needed to ‘meet an identified local need’ Why had the applicant not provided evidence why further density increase was required when there was already another C2 property less than 0.2 miles away?
• NPPF  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.