Agenda item

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

The Planning Team Leader:

a.    reported that planning permission was sought for the erection of a single storey rear extension to a two storey semi-detached dwelling with a detached garage at 4 Southland Drive,

b.    reported that the property had previously been extended to the side via an enclosed car port and pitched roof conservatory to the rear which would be partly removed to accommodate this proposal

c.    highlighted that the application had been brought to Planning Committee as the applicant was related to a member of staff working for the City of Lincoln Council

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:

·         Local and National Planning Policy

·         Effect on Residential Amenity

·         Effect on Visual Amenity

·         Effect on Highway Safety

g.    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

h.    concluded that the proposed extension was appropriately designed and would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area nor the amenities of all existing and future occupants of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy LP26 ‘Design and Amenity’ of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (2017) and National Planning Policy Framework.

Mr John Staniforth addressed Planning Committee in objection to the application, covering the following main points:

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

·         He had concerns regarding the reconstruction of the boundary wall.

·         The foundations seemed to extend to his side of the property.

·         There was an issue with some of his own hedges/trees and bushes which would need to be removed to facilitate the extension.

·         The plans were not clear in terms of ascertaining how the build would be constructed without avoiding damage to his roof facia

·         This application represented a third resubmission of the plans.

·         Issues with loss of light.

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

·         Should this application be granted planning permission for a single storey rear extension would the extant planning permissions previously given stand or fall?

·         Could reassurance be given that there would be no damage caused during the build to the next door property?

·         Could officers give clarification as to the number of bushes/trees to be removed?

The Planning Team Leader provided the following response to the questions raised:

·         The drawings were in the curtilage of the applicant’s ownership, the project could only go ahead with agreement of the neighbour.

·         The Party Wall Act although beyond the scope of the planning application afforded mitigation rights to the neighbour.

·         The applicant had no right to go onto the neighbour’s property beyond his boundary or affect any bushes/trees.

·         The existing planning applications were also valid, however, the applicant was only permitted to implement one in its entirety within its timescale.

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

Standard Conditions

·         3 years

·         Approved drawings

Conditions to be discharged before commencement of works

None.

Conditions to be discharged before use is implemented

None.

Conditions to be adhered to at all times

None.