Agenda item

The Assistant Director for Planning:

a.    described the location of the application site at 18-20 Kingsway as follows:

·         It was situated to the north west of the road.

·         The frontage of the site viewed from Kingsway contained a two storey brick warehouse to the left with extensions to the side and rear.

·         A single storey steel clad building was located centrally on the site with a fenced enclosure to the right housing shipping containers operated by Cathedral Self Storage Ltd.

·         The rear boundary was defined by a 1.8m approx. high fence.

·         The rear gable of the brick warehouse formed the side boundaries of 15 St Andrews Close and 38 Hope Street to the north west.

·         A narrow strip of land was situated to the side north east boundary which appeared to be used for the storage of materials with the side boundary of 12 Kingsway beyond.

·         Allotments were located adjacent to the opposite side on the south west boundary.

·         It was located within Flood Zone 2.

·         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.

·         Kingsway provided access to Bishop King Primary School located to the west at the end of the street.

b.    advised that planning permission was sought as a resubmission for the erection of 9 three bedroom dwellinghouses, to provide 19 car parking spaces located within a parking area to the rear of the site

c.    reported that the application had been revised during the planning process altering the design of the roof and rear elevation; reconfiguring the car parking layout with all neighbours having been re-consulted on these changes

d.    reported on the site history to the resubmitted application as detailed within the officer’s report which included an appeal against refusal of planning permission which was dismissed by the Inspector on the grounds of lack of affordable housing although not in terms of any issue in respect of the level of parking

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 LP16: Development on Land Affected by Contamination

·         Policy LP25: The Historic Environment

·         Policy LP26: Design and Amenity

·         Supplementary Planning Document Central Lincolnshire Developer Contributions

·         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:

·         Principle of Use

·         Developer Contributions

·         Visual Amenity

·         Residential Amenity

·         Access and Highways

·         Flood Risk and Drainage

g.    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

h.    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, particularly in relation to 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.

·         Technical matters relating to access and parking, contamination, flood risk, trees and archaeology 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 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail. The following comments/questions emerged:

·         Was there to be a ban to building on adjacent allotments in the area of the development?

·         Could officers give a reassurance that issues of increased traffic accessing and egressing the proposed development had been addressed?

·         This application offered improved car parking spaces compared to the previous one. Had this been communicated to local residents?

·         The Highways Authority had no objections regarding increased traffic in the area.

·         The proposal for a row of terraced houses on the street would fit in well with the area.

·         This proposal was much improved compared to the previous planning application for the site refused recently.

·         Could officers give an assurance that there would be no clashes or obstructions caused by deliveries to the site during the construction process?

Kieron Manning, Assistant Director for Planning offered the following points of clarification to members:

·         There were currently no proposals for building on the adjacent allotments as part of this planning application and he had not been party to any discussions regarding the future of the allotment site.

·         The provision of two car parking spaces per dwelling plus one left over was considered more than adequate for a scheme of this nature in such a location.

·         In terms of access the Highways Authority as statutory consultee considered the proposal to be acceptable and not harmful enough to warrant refusal.

·         A reduction in the number of proposed dwellings for this scheme would reduce the amount of comings/goings in terms of access and egress.

·         A condition was attached to the grant of planning permission pertaining to construction management to minimise disruption to neighbours close by although the development was inevitable to cause some unavoidable disruption.

·         Local residents had been re-consulted on the number of additional car parking spaces provided by the scheme in order to make them aware and give some comfort in the changes made to the original proposals to address objections raised in this respect.

Councillor Tweddle, Chair, asked whether many complaints were received generally in terms of construction traffic in respect of developments in progress.

Kieron Manning, Assistant Director for Planning highlighted that construction traffic did not normally cause a problem. Complaints were sometimes received, however local residents were quick to respond with any potential issues which were addressed straight away by officers accordingly.

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

• Time limit of the permission
• Development in accordance with approved plans
• Contamination
• Archaeology
• Land levels
• Samples of materials
• Implementation of landscaping
• Tree protection measures
• Implementation of boundary treatments
• Assessment of off-site impact of external lighting
• Electric vehicle recharge points
• Development in accordance with Flood Risk Assessment
• No surface water infiltration without consent
• Reinstatement of full height kerbs
• Construction Management Plan (traffic generation and drainage)
• Construction of the development (delivery times and working hours)
• Windows and doors set in reveal