Agenda item

(Councillor Bean returned to the room and re-took his seat as a member of Planning Committee for the remainder of the meeting.)

 

The Principal Planning Officer:

 

a.    advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of a two storey dwelling (with rooms in the roof served by dormers) on land to the rear and west of 97 Boultham Park Road, a two storey detached dwelling located on the corner of Boultham Park Road and Earls Drive, currently occupied by garden land and a double garage/store with access from Earls Drive

 

b.    reported that the dwelling would replace the existing garage and would incorporate three bedrooms and a double garage, utilising the existing vehicular access, and was situated within Flood Zone 3

 

c.    highlighted that the application had been revised during the process, firstly to address an objection from the Environment Agency and again to improve the relationship with neighbouring 95 Boultham Park Road; as detailed later within the officer’s report, all neighbours had been re-consulted on the first revision with 95 Boultham Park Road directly notified of the second revision affecting their property

 

d.    advised that the application had been called in to be determined by committee at the request of Councillor Hewson

 

e.    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 LP14   Managing Water Resources and Flood Risk

·         Policy LP26   Design and Amenity Standards

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

                       

f.     outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

g.    referred to the update sheet which contained revised site layout plans for the planning application relating to boundary treatment, an electric vehicle re-charge point, retained hedge and fencing, and a revised proposed officer recommendation in respect of the planning application

 

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

 

·         Principle of Use

·         Visual Amenity

·         Residential Amenity

·         Flood Risk

·         Access and Highways

 

i.      concluded that:

 

·         The principle of a dwelling in this location was considered to be acceptable and the development would relate well to the site and surroundings, particularly in relation to siting, height, scale, massing and design.

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

·         Technical matters relating to flood risk, drainage and highways were also to the satisfaction of the relevant consultees.

·         The proposal would therefore be in accordance with the requirements of Central Lincolnshire Local Plan Policies LP1, LP2, LP14 and LP26, as well as guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

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

 

·         His objections were based on the overlooking position.

·         Two revised plans had been produced - on each occasion the only change was to introduce obscure glazed windows.

·         Overlooking was such a major issue resulting in the need for planning permission to be refused.

·         The obscure glass facing our property had a door next to it. The height of the door well overlooked the height of the fence due to an increase of 1 metre on finished levels of the proposed building.

·         In comparison to the height of the existing garage, our land was even lower and the floor level of the new building would be raised by an extra metre.

·         The height of the new build would be 12 metres taking into account land levels.

·         The officer’s report stated that the new build would not appear unduly dominant when viewed from 1 Earls Drive, however, at a distance of 1.4 metres from our fence we didn’t feel this was acceptable.

·         Some of the land held a restricted covenant. Although planning officers had stated this was not within the Council’s remit, he himself was in possession of a letter from the Head of Planning Services stating that the build had been refused originally due to a restricted covenant on the land. Why was this still not an issue?

 

Mr Ian Butler, agent, addressed Planning Committee in support of the planning application on behalf of the applicant, covering the following main points:

 

·         He thanked members of Planning Committee for allowing him the opportunity to speak.

·         The original design context for the new build consisted of two storey with roof accommodation.

·         The revised proposals were the same in principle, but with added mitigation measures to address the height of floor levels to satisfy the Environment Agency and protect the amenity of No 95 Boultham Park Road.

·         The floor level difference relative to existing properties was another 500mm.

·         The developer had worked with planning officers to help mitigate the issues raised by objectors.

·         Careful consideration had been given to the position of windows to maintain privacy of neighbouring properties.

 

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail.

 

Members made the following individual comments against the proposals:

 

·         No habitable accommodation in the garden had been imposed recently on a planning application in the area.

·         The development did affect the amenity of the area.

·         The amenity for having substantial gardens in the area would be reduced.

·         Covenants had been discussed by this Committee in the past.

·         The proposal would affect the character of the local area.

 

Members asked for clarification in relation to the following main points:

 

·         Why the Environment Agency were happy with the proposals although the Drainage Board had raised an objection.

·         Whether residents were saying there was insufficient obscure glazing only.

·         Whether overlooking distance as well as visibility was adequate in terms of planning regulations.

·         Where residents would park their cars when the garage was demolished.

·         Whether the frosted windows with clear ‘top overs’ could be conditioned to remain closed at all times to protect the privacy of neighbouring properties.

·         Whether the objections in respect of overlooking related mostly to the garden area.

·         Whether the issue of soakaways raised by the Drainage Board could be addressed.

 

The Principal Planning Officer offered the following points of clarification in relation to member’s comments:

 

·         The top openings to the obscure glazed windows at level 3 were high up. A condition could be imposed to require them to be ‘non-opening’ if members were so minded.

·         There would be ample space for residents to park their vehicles within their own plot.

·         There was a difference of opinion between the Drainage Board and Environment Agency. The Drainage Board tended to raise objections to planning applications in principle in all Flood Zone 3 areas. The Environment Agency as statutory consultee had recommended the level of 5.6 metres as the finished level for the building.

·         The matter of a covenant was not a planning consideration. It was mentioned before as a matter of explanation to enlighten consultees rather than a planning consideration.

·         In terms of obscure glazing, the distance from the boundary of the new build to the hedge would be retained at 2.4 metres.

·         The issue raised by the Drainage Board in relation to soakaways would be dealt with.

 

A motion was proposed by Councillor Bean and seconded by Councillor C Burke that the ‘top overs’ to obscure glazed windows be fixed as non-opening.

 

The motion was put to the vote and carried.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

• Development to commence within three years
• Development to be constructed in accordance with the submitted plans
• Development in accordance with Flood Risk Assessment
• Windows installed strictly as per plans
• Removal of permitted development rights including windows
• Fence to replace section of hedge in accordance with submitted details
• Materials as submitted details
• Electric vehicle recharge point installed as per submitted details
• Construction of the development (delivery times and working hours
• Obscure glazed windows to be non- vented.