Agenda item

The Planning Team Leader:

1. described the details of the application to the property at 42 Kelstern Road, Lincoln, which was a detached bungalow, proposing the demolition of the existing attached garage and partial removal of hillock to facilitate the erection of a single storey front and side extension and detached single storey garage;

2. advised that the site was located within a large well-established residential estate with dwellings adjacent to the north, south and west.  It was also advised the site was not located in a conservation area and there was no listed buildings surrounding the site.

3. further advised that the application had been subject to extensive negotiations with the agent securing revisions to the proposal to overcome concerns raised by neighbours.  Revied plans had been submitted in May 2021 and a re-consultation had been carried out in June 2021 for fourteen days.  The re-consultation had been carried out in accordance with the Council’s consultation code of practice.

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

·         Policy LP26 Design and Amenity

·         National Planning Policy Framework

5. advised the Committee of the main issues to be considered as part of the application to assess the proposal with regards to:

·         National and Local Planning Policy

·         Effect on Visual Amenity

·         Effect on Residential Amenity

·         Effect on Highway Safety

·         Other Matters

6. outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise;

7. referred to the update sheet which contained additional photos from an objector in respect of the proposed development.  It was highlighted that most of the photos were a repeat of those included within the report;

8. concluded that the proposed development 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 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Mrs R Fraser, a local resident, addressed the Planning Committee in opposition to the application, making the following points:

·         She was an immediate neighbour but was also speaking on behalf of other neighbours in the cul de sac.

·         The overall height and scale of the proposed plans was a concern, as it was already the largest bungalow having had an extension for an en-suite.  Therefore the height and size would be overbearing and not in keeping with the surrounding area. 

·         A root protection had been put in place for the mature oak tree, which was located nearest to the boundary.  However, there remained ongoing concerns over the long-term effects on the three oak trees; whether the cutting of the lateral roots on one side, coupled with the excavation of the mound, could destabilise the tree causing damage to properties; and whether the tree would be able to obtain enough nutrients. 

·         Concern was raised regarding the potential for subsidence if the mound was removed on the applicant’s side of the property, causing damage to her own property.

·         The change in direction of the driveway would cause noise and disturbance to the objector’s property, as cars would be driven close to the side of her garden. 

·         It was suspected that the proposed garage would not be used for its intended purpose and instead used as a dwelling, which would lead to an increase in noise pollution.

·         The proposed build could result in more noise disturbance as it would be closer to her property, particularly if loud music was being played.

·         The size of the build could attract burglars into the area, particularly if building materials or equipment was left onsite.

·         Access to all properties in the cul de sac was required at all times and there was a concern that whilst the building work was taking place, there would be an increase in vehicles parked on the cul de sac blocking access to residents or emergency services.

·         There would be a loss of visual amenity and loss of light to Mrs Fraser’s property, as the entrances to her property would overlook the proposed build.

·         A concern that non-professional construction, without building liability insurance, could be used by the applicant rather than professional tradesmen.  There was also a concern that the building site might not be well maintained, with rubbish being left onsite.

·         Prior to the application being submitted, mature trees had been removed which had impacted on the local wildlife.

The Committee discussed the content of the report and the following questions and comments were put forward:

·         Question: It was queried whether the mounds had been investigated to ensure they were not of archaeology interest.

·         Answer: It was confirmed the City Archaeologist had reviewed the mound. 

·         Comment: It was stated that the proposed changes remained at single storey level.  It was also highlighted that the garage could not be used as a dwelling without prior approval of the Planning Committee, which would require an application for change of use.  Should the garage be used as a dwelling without this permission, this would become a planning enforcement matter.

·         Answer: It was reiterated by officers that if the garage was used as a dwelling without approval to do so, it would become a planning enforcement matter.

·         Comment: In the absence of any material reasons for refusing the application, a member of the Committee stated that he would support the application.

·         Question: The meaning of ‘Use of garage for domestic purposes only’, which was one of the proposed conditions, was queried.

·         Answer: It was clarified that this condition would prevent the applicant from using the garage for business purposes.

RESOLVED that the application planning permission be approved subject to the following conditions:

• Development to be carried out within three years.
• Development to be carried out in accordance with the plans.
• Implementation of tree protection.
• Timing of retaining structure works.
• Use of garage for domestic purposes only.
• Removal of permitted development for new openings within extension and garage.
• Hours of construction 8 am to 6pm Monday to Friday 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays.
• Reporting of unexpected contamination if discovered.