(Councillors Bean, Brothwell, Bushell, Hanrahan, Hewson and Tweddle returned to the meeting. Councillor Hanrahan re-took his seat as Chair)
The Planning Manager:
a. advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of a single storey dwelling house to provide two bedrooms at the rear of No 9 Saxon Street; a mid-Victorian, three-storey end-of-terrace residential property with (formerly) a shopfront on the ground floor façade
b. highlighted that the houses on Saxon Street typically had small rear yards with small outbuildings, however, the yard at the rear of the application site was different as it widened out at the end away from the house to span the width of the neighbouring two gardens; giving the piece of land an 'L' shape, on which it was proposed to erect a new building; leaving the application property with a remaining yard space similar to the other houses on the street
c. confirmed that the site did not lie within a Conservation Area, but was close to the northern edge of the City of Lincoln Cathedral and City Centre Conservation Area No.1
d. 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 LP10 Meeting Accommodation Needs
· Policy LP26 Design and Amenity
· National Planning Policy Framework
e. outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise
f. advised members of the main issues to be considered as part of the application as follows:
· National and Local Planning Policy
· Impact on Visual Amenity
· Impact on Residential Amenity
· Impact on Highway Safety
g. concluded that:
· The scale, massing and design of the proposed dwelling was considered to be acceptable and would have a satisfactory relationship with the host dwelling and the wider area.
· The use of high quality materials would make a positive contribution to the appearance of the wider area.
· The proposal would also not cause undue harm to the residential amenities of neighbouring occupants.
· The proposal was therefore in accordance with Policies LP1, LP2, LP10 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire and with the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.
Members discussed the content of the report in further detail, referring to the Highways Authority objection to the proposal on the grounds of insufficient parking provision. Individual members responded as follows:
· The Highways Authority had not commented on similar planning applications in this manner.
· There was a contradiction in terms within the report in respect of the Highways Authority objection due to lack of parking, which also stated that the Highways Authority did not request the provision of onsite parking to the host property adjacent to the application site as it had been granted use as a House in Multiple Occupation.
· Nobody had complained to the member concerned in his capacity as local councillor for the area regarding lack of car parking on this street.
· The Highways Authority’s view as experts in its field should be heeded in this case. According to the Highways Authority it had a legitimate reason for refusal of planning permission.
· The issues of emergency vehicle access and the letters of objection received in relation to the proposed development supported the Highways Authority objection.
The Planning Manager commented that planning officers did not concur with the Highways Authority opinion.
Members commented further in relation to the proposed development as follows:
· It seemed that the only access to the property was through the side gate or existing house.
· The report inferred the height of the proposed building to be only inches above the set limit requiring planning permission.
· There were no plans detailing internal graphics of the inside of the building in order to make a comparison to the house in multiple occupation next door.
· The street should form part of the Resident’s Parking Scheme.
The Planning Manager offered the following points of clarification:
· A mixed message had been provided here in terms of parking provision for the house next door in multiple occupation.
· Access to the property was via the main entrance doorway in Gray Street.
· The 3-4 metre height difference of the building compared to the existing wall was negligible and would not afford any ability to overlook.
· Highways issues raised by neighbours, and picked up by the Highways Authority seemed to relate to problems concerning emergency access on Gray Street, an existing problem which should be dealt with in its own right, not addressed through this planning application. Members remit here was to ascertain whether one additional dwelling would make such a marked difference to parking in the vicinity to warrant refusal of planning permission.
RESOLVED, that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
(Councillors J Kirk and R Hills requested that their vote against this planning application be recorded.)