Agenda item

(Councillor Hills requested it be recorded that he knew several of the objectors to the planning application, but not as close acquaintances, he had not pre-determined his views in any way or given an opinion on the matter to be discussed.)

The Planning Manager:

a)    advised that the application sought a change of use from a dwellinghouse to a flexible C4/C3 use to enable the property to be used as a House In Multiple Occupation for up to 6 unrelated occupants

b)    reported that the property had originally operated as a 3 bed detached dwelling although a former living area downstairs had been converted to create a fourth bedroom, two of the bedrooms within the property were large enough to be occupied by more than one occupant and whilst the applicant had suggested that he may only occupy the property with 3 people to begin with, he would look to occupy it with the maximum allowed under C4 in the future (6 occupants)

c)    referred to a previous application granted conditionally by Planning Committee on 31st August 2016 for a first floor, front, side and rear extension (2016/0638/HOU), advising as follows:

·         The applicant had been made aware that should the application currently before us be granted and implemented, the previously granted extension could not be added to the C4 property as the extension was granted to the C3 dwellinghouse.

·         Should the applicant wish to extend the property and change the use, then he would need to withdraw the current application and make a resubmission for a change of use and extension under one application.

·         The applicant had decided to continue with the current application for a flexible C3/C4 use without extending the property.

d)    highlighted that the applicant had confirmed that he was currently living in the property with his partner and two lodgers, which would fall within the definition of a C3 use, however, in contrast to this, the same applicant had submitted a Certificate of Lawful Use, in an attempt to prove that the property had been operating as a C4 use during the time of the implementation of the Article 4 Direction and continued as such after this time. (considered separately under application 2017/1380/CLE)

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

·         Policy LP37: Sub-division and Multi-Occupation of Dwellings within Lincoln 86

·         Supplementary Planning Guidance: Houses in Multiple Occupation

·         Policy LP26   Design and Amenity

f)     outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

g)    referred to the update sheet which contained photographs provided by the applicant, also confirming that the application for a Certificate of Lawful (CLE) use at 1 Shearwater Road had now been refused on grounds of insufficient evidence being provided to prove that, on the balance of probability the property had been used as a House in Multiple Occupation for 3-6 unrelated people during the introduction of the Article 4 Direction and after this time,

h)    reported on the issues raised by the application principally relatibg to those raised in the 'Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document' and Policies LP26 and LP37 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2017, being:

·         Impact on amenity of surrounding properties and character of the area 

·         Loss of single family home

·         Concentration of HMOs in area

·         External communal space and cycle storage 

·         Highway safety

i)     concluded that the proposal was contrary to the SPD for Houses in Multiple Occupation and to Policies LP26 and 37 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Mr Quyen Truong, Applicant, addressed Planning Committee in support of the proposed development, covering the following main points:

·         He had been a long standing resident of 1 Shearwater Road for 16 years and intended to continue living there indefinitely.

·         The proposed changes to his property would enhance the neighbourhood.

·         The property would always retain its status as a family dwelling with an element of flexibility for C4 use occupied by professional people.

·         The development would add value to the wider community.

·         Premium quality affordable accommodation would be offered to professionals and not students.

·         There was a reliable bus and cycle route close by to commute to work.

·         He had demonstrated within the application that he could add six car parking spaces within the site.

·         He referred to the photographs on the update sheet.

·         Traffic safety would be improved by removing the hedge/wall to the front of his property.

·         There were no objections from the Highways Authority or Lincolnshire Police.

·         There had been no anti-social behaviour complaints.

·         Objections were in the minority.

·         He urged members not to let narrow minded objectors in the minority to affect their judgement.

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail, making the following comments:

·         It was heartening to see Supplementary Planning Documents applied to this type of residential area.

·         The development would cause traffic/parking issues being close to the main road on the corner of the street. Removing the hedge would not alleviate this issue.

·         This was a beautiful area which should be retained as accommodation for families.

·         Changes in character should be reflected across the whole of the city.

·         The law stipulated that the property should be sold on as a family house if it could be to protect community areas such as this.

·         Other properties parked their vehicles on the roadside.

The Planning Manager offered the following points of clarification:

·         There was nothing essentially to prevent residents parking their cars on the street under C3 use.

·         In relation to impact on other residents/road users, it was unlikely for families to have 6 cars parked at any one time.

·         Noise disturbance was likely to be greater with 6 unrelated residents carrying out independent living.

RESOLVED that the application be refused

Refusal Reasons:

01)      The application failed to demonstrate there was an established lack of demand for the single family use of the application property thereby discouraging owner occupation by families and resulted in a loss of a family home, contrary to Policy LP37 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and the Supplementary Planning Document.

02)      The paving of the front garden to create the amount of parking spaces required for the proposed change of use would be harmful to visual amenity and would negatively change the character of the area to an unacceptable degree. This was particularly harmful given the prominent position of the property, on the entrance to the estate and on the corner of Shearwater Road and Skellingthorpe Road, a major route within the City. These parking arrangements would not respect the character and identity of the area and would therefore be contrary to Policy LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.