Agenda item

The Planning Manager:

a)    described the application site located on Winn Street to the south of Monks Road bordering the Monks Abbey recreation ground to the west, rear elevations of terraced houses on Spa Street to the east, and to the north a more modern development of three houses, nos. 74B, C and D Winn Street, facing west towards the recreation ground with a vehicular access from Winn Street along the eastern boundary of the application site

b)    advised that the site was currently occupied by a single bungalow, no. 74A Winn Street, being vacant and in a state of repair with boarded up windows

c)    advised that the application sought permission for the demolition of the bungalow and in its place to erect a two/three storey building accommodating a total of seven apartments

d)    reported that two previous planning applications granted for the same site had both since expired, the development being proposed under this latest application was essentially identical to the 2007 approval and 2010 renewal, with a slight revision to the internal layout, as detailed within the officer’s report

e)    confirmed that the application was being presented to Members of Planning Committee as four objections had been received, one being a petition with 33 signatures, together with comments and photographs received from Cllr. Fay Smith in respect of parking and bin storage

f)     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 LP13: Accessibility and Transport

·         Policy LP25: The Historic Environment

·         Policy LP26: Design and Amenity

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

g)    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

h)    referred to the update sheet which contained a revised site layout plan illustrating an amended bin storage location as agreed in consultation with Biffa, photographs provided by Councillor Fay Smith, page 2 of the petition which was omitted from the original agenda, and a revised officer recommendation requesting that the application be granted conditionally subject to listed conditions, with authority delegated to the Planning Manager to enable the required desk based assessment to be submitted and considered by the City Archaeologist

i)     reported on the issues raised by the application as follows:

·         Visual Amenity

·         Principle of Use

·         Residential Amenity

·         Parking

·         Archaeology

·         Drainage

·         Bin Storage

j)     concluded that:

·         The principle of the re-development of the site was acceptable and the proposal could be successfully accommodated here, relating well to the surroundings, particularly in relation to siting, height, scale, massing and design.

·         The proposal would not cause undue harm to the amenities which occupiers of neighbouring properties may reasonably expect to enjoy.

·         Matters relating to parking, archaeology, drainage and potential noise for future occupants had been appropriately considered and could be dealt with by condition where necessary.

·         The proposal would therefore be in accordance with the requirements of Central Lincolnshire Local Plan Policies LP1, LP2, LP13, LP25 and LP26, as well as guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

·         It was concerning to see a bungalow left in such a bad condition.

·         Parking issues were difficult at all times in many similar areas, attributable to local residents or workers.

·         Congestion was getting worse in the city with no mitigation measures for parking.

·         The application had been approved twice before with little change here apart from bin storage.

·         Accommodation was in short demand in the city.

·         The Highways Authority had raised no objections to the proposals.

·         There were potential options in the future for residents parking in the area.

·         The petition had raised a lot of public feeling; it was important to explain the reasons for decisions made at Planning Committee.

·         It would be helpful to insert a drainage gully at the edge of the development to run straight into the main to prevent flooding often occurring in the area.

Councillor Strengiel advised from his knowledge as a County Councillor that the Highways Authority’s tended to look at safety congestion rather than car parking issues.

The Planning Manager offered the following points of clarification:

·         : It was standard practice for all applications receiving objections to be sent a response informing them of the decision made at Planning Committee. Those members of the public having signed the petition would be notified of the decision accordingly provided adequate postal addresses had been provided.

·         : The Planning Authority was aware of the flooding problem on Winn Street. The County Council as Flood Authority had raised no objections, however the issues would need to be covered through building regulations as part of foundation design.

·         was principally highway safety. It also looked at capacity issues for large developments. It did not specifically look at parking requirements on residential developments. The remit of Planning Committee was to take each application on a case by case basis weighing up its deliberations based upon all the considerations before us when making its decision.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined below and that authority be delegated to the Planning Manager to enable the required Desk Based Assessment to be submitted and considered by the City Council’s Archaeologist:

• Time limit of the permission;
• Development in accordance with approved plans;
• Samples of materials;
• Contamination;
• Archaeology;
• Landscaping;
• Refuse storage areas made available prior to occupation;
• Construction of the development (delivery times and working hours); and
• Obscure glazing to bedroom and landing windows.