Agenda item

(Councillor Longbottom re-joined her seat for the remainder of the meeting).

 

The Planning Manager:

 

a.    described the application site 18-20 Kingsway, located to the north side of the road next to an existing two storey brick warehouse to the left of the site with extensions to the side and rear, and a single storey steel clad building located more centrally with a fenced enclosure to the right, housing a number of shipping containers operated by Cathedral Self Storage Ltd

 

b.    reported that the application sought planning permission for the erection of 6no. two bedroom dwellinghouses and a 3-storey building to provide 8no. two bedroom apartments and 4no. one bedroom apartments with associated external works including provision of 18no car parking spaces, a communal garden and a wall with railings to the front boundary

 

c.    reported that the wider area was predominantly characterised by a mix of two storey semis and terraces with the rear of the Ducati Showroom directly opposite the site

 

d.    highlighted that Kingsway also provided access to Bishop King Primary School, located at the end of the street to the west

 

e.    advised on the location of the site within Flood Zone 2

 

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 LP11: Affordable Housing

·         Policy LP12: Infrastructure to Support Growth

·         Policy LP14: Managing Water Resources and Flood Risk

·         Policy LP16: Development on Land affected by Contamination

·         Policy LP25: The Historic Environment

·         Policy LP26: Design and Amenity

·         Central Lincolnshire Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

·         National Planning Policy Framework

           

g.    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

h.    referred to the update sheet which provided a revised proposed officer recommendation without the requirement for the applicant to sign an S106 legal agreement following a viability appraisal submitted and further advice taken

 

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

 

·         Principle of Use

·         Developer Contributions

·         Visual Amenity

·         Residential Amenity

·         Access and Highways

·         Flood Risk and Drainage

·         Trees

 

j.      concluded that:

 

·         The principle of the use of the site for residential purposes was considered to be acceptable and the development would relate well to the site and surroundings in respect of siting, height, scale, massing and design.

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

·         An independently assessed viability appraisal had concluded that the development would not be viable if it were to provide affordable housing and contributions towards playing fields and local green infrastructure.

·         Subject to the signing of an overage S106 officers were satisfied that this could be managed with a requirement for such payments should the profitability position of the development change at the time of completion (requirement now amended as detailed on the update sheet).

·         Technical matters relating to access and parking, contamination, flood risk and trees were to the satisfaction of the relevant consultees and could be dealt with appropriately by condition.

·         The proposal would therefore be in accordance with the requirements of Central Lincolnshire Local Plan Policies LP1, LP2, LP14, LP16, LP25 and LP26, as well as guidance within the SPD and National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Adam Titley addressed Planning Committee in objection to the planning application, covering the following main points:

 

·         He lived at No 9 Kingsway

·         At a minimum, car parking availability would be affected by the proposed development.

·         18 car parking spaces within the scheme would not be sufficient.

·         There was a potential for 32 new cars on the street with most properties these days owning more than one vehicle.

·         There would be friction between current/new occupiers regarding car parking spaces.

·         Parking was not an issue when I purchased my property.

·         If planning permission was granted here myself and other residents would no longer have the luxury to park outside their properties, which would reduce the value of his house with no available parking for him personally returning home after a 12 hour shift.

·         Kingsway was already dangerously busy with an entrance to the school/local businesses.

·         Accidents/incidents occurred monthly on the access into Kingsway.

·         My car had been damaged whilst parked.

·         There would be a danger to school children/users/pedestrians.

·         The scheme would have a negative impact on the residents of Kingsway.

 

Members raised concerns in relation to the proposed scheme as follows:

 

·         Without an S106 agreement there would be no element of affordable housing within the scheme.

·         It was disappointing that the NHS had not requested a contribution towards health provision.

·         Should this application be allowed it would set a precedent for future developments.

·         Concerns regarding adequate car parking.

·         Concerns regarding over development of the site.

·         Concerns regarding traffic implications on a busy road junction with South Park.

·         The proposed development was close to a primary school.

·         Viability concerns.

 

One member suggested it may be possible to introduce a hardstanding with dropped kerbs to allow additional car parking spaces along the street.

 

The Planning Manager offered the following points of clarification:

 

·         In relation to S106 payments, both the NHS and the Education Authority had been consulted. Following an independent assessment both organisations had determined that a financial contribution was not warranted.

·         A Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payment had been made, this was not negotiable.

·         Parking provision was an emotive subject on most development schemes. The Highways Authority as statutory consultee had not raised any objections regarding highway safety.

·         A ‘one for one’ car parking facility was considered to be a good level of provision in this sort of area.

·         In relation to the suggestion made for extra car parking spaces, he was doubtful this would be possible due to the viability of the site and the amount of car parking provision already proposed, although he could not confirm this.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused.

 

Reasons:

 

·         Lack of provision of affordable housing contrary to policy LP1 and LPII.

 

·         Impact on the amenity of local residents and lack of parking contrary to Policy LP26.