Agenda item

(Councillor Bean left the room for the discussion on this item having declared a personal and pecuniary interest in the matter to be discussed. He took no part in the discussion or vote on the matter to be determined

(Councillor C Burke re-joined his seat as a member of Planning Committee for the remainder of the meeting).

The Planning Team Leader:

a.    reported that the application represented a resubmission of a previously approved planning application granted by Planning Committee in February 2020 (2019/0971/HOU) and now proposed a two storey front extension and single storey side extension to a two storey detached dwelling at 86 Wolsey Way

b.    detailed the amendments requested by the resubmitted application this evening to alter the approved proposal consisting of a bay window to the side elevation facing No. 84 Wolsey Way as well as a single storey extension to the opposite side, adjacent to the boundary with No. 92, with all other details remaining as previously approved

c.    highlighted that the application had been brought to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Jackie Kirk as Ward Councillor

d.    provided a full site history in relation to the application property as detailed within the officer’s report

e.    provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:

·         Policy LP26   Design and Amenity

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

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

·         Impact on Residential Amenity

·         Impact on Visual Amenity

·         Impact on Highway Safety

g.    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

h.    concluded that the resubmitted application incorporated minor alterations which, on balance, would not cause unacceptable harm to visual amenity, residential amenity or highway safety, in accordance with the relevant policies of the National Planning Policy Framework and Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

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

·         He lived at the house next door to the application property.

·         He thanked Councillor J Kirk and Councillor Vaughan for their support in his objection to the planning application.

·         The report referred to the application property being in a cul-de-sac, whereas in reality it was in a private courtyard; No 82/84 shared a driveway and no 86 had its own.

·         Concerns were raised here again about the size of the development as was the case in 1985 when it was built.

·         The proposed side extension was closer to his boundary fence than permitted according to planning guidance.

·         The revised submission brought the distance of the proposed extension even closer to his habitable side of the property.

·         Policy LP26 referred to the amenities of existing and new occupants that they may expect to enjoy. He did not consider a wall blocking his daylight would be of any benefit.

·         The windows of his property affected by the proposed development may be obscure, however, daylight would be affected to his home from noon onwards.

·         A colony of bats in the garden of the application property and roosting/nesting birds should be protected under Policy LP21: Green Wedges.

·         The proposals were contrary to Policy LP26: Design and Amenity in terms of siting/height/scale and massing.

·         The response submitted by the Highways Authority was not signed by an authorised officer which he was surprised had not been raised previously.

Councillor Jackie Kirk addressed Planning Committee as Ward Advocate for the application representing local constituents, covering the following main points:

·         She thanked members of Planning Committee for allowing her the opportunity to speak.

·         She was familiar with this application which she had spoken against at Planning Committee when it was granted planning permission in February 2020.

·         The resubmitted planning application proposed a further widening of the downstairs lounge by 1.2 metres closer to the boundary with No 92 Wolsey Way at ground floor level.

·         The proposed extension would be adjacent to No 92, 0.9 metres away from the boundary. This was less than 1 metre for a detached property.

·         There would be loss of light to the ensuite bathroom of No 92 and side garden area.

·         The report referred to the extension not being overbearing despite loss of light.

·         Policy LP26 stated that all developments including extensions must achieve high quality sustainable design with equality/access for all.

·         In terms of Policy LP26: Design and amenity, the future occupants of the neighbours land and properties should not be unduly affected as a result of such development.

·         There would be overshadowing/overlooking and adverse impact from the proposed development.

·         She urged members of Planning Committee to please consider objecting to this proposal.

Councillor B Bushell highlighted that he had visited the site to get a prospective of the proposals which had a slightly different set up to usual in that the property already had a double garage in front of the existing property which was 0.9 metres from the boundary of the house next door.

Members commented in relation to the proposed scheme as follows:

·         The only alterations to consider here compared to the previously approved planning permission was an extension to the lounge area.

·         The windows affected by the side extension at No 92 were frosted and not habitable rooms which imposed less of an impact.

·         It was not in good spirit to submit a further planning application to add extra space to the ground floor side extension here which would be overbearing.

Members queried the distance between the proposed side extension and the boundary of the garden fence at No 92 in terms of permitted development?

The Planning Team Leader clarified this matter as follows:

·         Referring to the plans of the proposed elevations, the side elevation to the left hand site of the property containing the two doors was permitted development.

·         The two storey development to the right of the property already had planning permission.

·         The distance from the boundary with No 92 between the fence and side wall of the property was 0.9 metres. There would be sufficient room to build conventionally without any overhang.

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

• Standard years condition and plans conditions
• Construction hours condition
• The construction of the development hereby permitted shall only be undertaken between the hours of 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday (inclusive) and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays and shall not be permitted at any other time, except in relation to internal plastering, decorating, floor covering, fitting of plumbing and electrics and the installation of kitchens and bathrooms.