Agenda item

The Assistant Director for Planning:

 

a.    reported that planning permission was sought for the erection of a three storey rear extension to facilitate the conversion of 96 High Street to three Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), one to accommodate 3 bedrooms (Use Class C4), 1 to accommodate 7 bedrooms and 1 to accommodate 12 bedrooms (Sui Generis)

 

b.    confirmed that the application would retain the existing retail unit fronting the High Street

 

c.    described the location of the site on the west side of the High Street, on the corner with Princess Street which continued along the south boundary of the site

 

d.    reported that the ground floor retail unit was currently vacant with the upper floors and a single storey rear off-shoot occupied as a six bedroom HMO, the rear off-shoot would be removed to accommodate the proposal

 

e.    described further particulars in respect of the site of the proposed development as follows:

 

·         It was adjoined to 97-98 High Street to the north, to the rear of which was a part two storey, part single storey off-shoot with a first floor balcony accommodating 3A, B, C and D Princess Street.

·         Vehicular access to the site was available to the west adjacent to Princess Street Garage, serving an area of site curtilage to the north.

·         This open portion of the site separated the proposal from 3A-D Princess Street and also other properties to the north, 99 High Street, the rear elevations and yards of 2 and 4 Foster Street as well as flats 1 and 2 St George’s Court.

·         The site was located within St Peter at Gowts Conservation Area.

 

f.     highlighted that the application had been brought to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Gary Hewson

 

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

 

h.    highlighted that the scheme had been revised during the process of the application to alter the design of the roof at the request of officers and included an additional door to the south elevation and a window to the west

 

i.      reported that the current re consultation period for the latest revisions was due to expire after this report was finalised, any further representations received in the intervening period would be included in full on the update sheet

 

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

 

·         Policy LP25: The Historic Environment

·         Policy LP26:  Design and Amenity

·         Policy LP33: Lincoln’s City Centre Primary Shopping Area and Central Mixed Use Area

·         National Planning Policy Framework

 

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

 

·         Principle and Policy Context

·         Visual Amenity and Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

·         Residential and Local Amenity

 

l.      outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

m.  referred to the update sheet which contained detailed plan elevations in respect of the proposed development

 

n.    concluded that :

 

·         The principle of the use was appropriate in this location.

·         The height, scale, mass and design of the extension was considered to be acceptable and would complement the architectural design of the property, also relating well to the surroundings.

·         The character and appearance of the conservation area would accordingly be enhanced.

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

·         The application was therefore in accordance with the requirements of Central Lincolnshire Local Plan Policies LP25, LP26 and LP33, and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

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

 

·         It was mentioned there were only minor differences to this planning application compared to the previous application for the site, however, the  original facility was only entitled to house 15 residents as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) although this proposal would add another 7 residents.

·         Concern was expressed as to the type of internal facilities the 22 residents would enjoy, being of higher density occupation than previously proposed.

·         It was hoped that work would be carried out to refurbish the retail unit at the front of the development on the High Street.

·         Lincoln Civic Trust had also expressed concerns regarding the high density occupation of the scheme. If planning permission was granted for this scheme, would the applicant need to apply for a HMO under a separate licence?

·         Although there were no issues with the front/south elevational plans, the north elevation was 2.5 metres higher to the eaves level than the previous application. The four flats at the rear of the development would look out onto an oblique blank wall with opaque windows.

·         There were issues of overbearing, loss of light and loss of local amenity.

·         One of the bedrooms on the first floor measured only 1.6 metres x 3.95 metres inclusive of En suite facilities. Did this meet the minimum requirements for bedroom sizes?

·         Some of the bedrooms went below the eaves of the roof onto Princess Street which may impact on usable space.

·         There was lack of detail for the scheme in relation to size of skylight windows, refuse facilities, bicycle racks etc.

·         What would happen to the two attractive windows at the west elevation to the original building?

·         Would replacement windows be subject to a condition to prevent use of UPVC?

 

The Assistant Director for Planning offered the following points of clarification to members:

 

·         It was clearly evident there was an issue with some of the room sizes proposed for the development.

·         All HMO’s required a licence to operate which included minimum sizes for the bedrooms, so there was a safety net regarding bedroom sizes which could be taken into consideration although this was under a separate piece of legislation.

·         The applicant had an aspiration to refurbish the shop front once the rear element of the development was established.

·         There was sufficient detail in the proposals for it to register as a planning application. Officers were always careful in cases with less than generous supply of background information to impose conditions on the grant of planning permission to ensure there were sufficient controls over construction.

·         Officers would not be expecting the developer to install UPVC windows, the windows in the High Street frontage would definitely be constructed of timber.

·         The scale, size and footprint of the proposed development was the same as that previously submitted. The maximum height was lower, however, the eaves height incorporated at the rear of the development was notable together with the intensity of use. It was within the gift of members to decide whether the increased height had an adverse effect on the amenity of residents.

 

A motion was proposed, seconded and:

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused.

 

Reasons:

 

1. The scale and mass of the proposed extension created an unduly overbearing effect and loss of natural light, harming the residential amenities of the occupants of houses to the north, contrary to policy LP26.

 

2. The number of bed spaces proposed over-intensified the HMO element of the property and in doing so resulted in an unacceptable level of residential amenity for its future occupants, contrary to Policy LP26.