Agenda item

The Assistant Director for Planning:

 

1. advised that permission was sought for demolition of an existing garage to accommodate a one-bedroom property with one off road parking space, comprising a double bedroom, bathroom, and open plan kitchen/living area

 

2. described 192 West Parade, a large House in Multiple Occupation (HIMO) situated on the corner of West Parade with Hampton Street, the proposed dwelling to be located to the rear of 192, however, it would front onto Hampton Street

 

3. advised that the land in between the rear of these properties and the site formed the service yard to 116 High Street, including a single storey metal clad store and some air conditioning units, to be accessed from Gaunt Street between no’s 7 and 11 across the existing service yard

 

4. confirmed that the site was situated within the West Parade and Brayford Conservation Area

 

5. referred to a previous planning application for the site for demolition of the existing garage to accommodate erection of two dwellings and creation of a new vehicular access, withdrawn on 29 June 2021, due to officer concerns regarding the proposed design of the scheme; pre-application advice had since been sought on a scaled back scheme which could be supported by officers

 

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

 

·         National Planning Policy Framework

·         Central Lincolnshire Local Plan LP26

 

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

 

·         Principle of Use

·         Visual Amenity

·         Impact on Neighbours

·         Technical Matters

 

8. outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

9. concluded that:

 

 

Helen Hancocks, local resident, addressed Planning Committee in objection to the application, making the following points:

 

·         She resided at 1 Hampton Street.

·         The proposed development would cause parking issues.

·         There were 13 houses on Hampton Street with provision of a maximum of 5 on-street car parking spaces, when people parked sensibly.

·         The introduction of a dropped curb to facilitate the development would result in 1 to 2 of these car parking spaces being lost.

·         On-site parking at the current property would be lost

·         The application site was situated at a blind spot for drivers/pedestrians and was especially dangerous for local school children during the school run.

·         There were already four houses numbered ‘No1’ on Hampton Street, what number would this residence be given?

·         The proposed development exerted pressures on existing amenities.

·         192 West Parade was occupied by students as a HMO, the development would result in loss of valuable garden space for them to relax, get fresh air, or even hang out washing. Outside space was vital to maintaining mental health in these difficult times.

·         Should the HMO wish to revert back into a family home this would not happen due to having no garden space.

·         The telephone box in front of our property would have to be moved; no consultations had taken place on this matter.

·         The off-street car parking ground was on a bumpy elevation was likely to be water permeable, causing potential of dampness in her property.

·         There were a lot less family homes in the area, it would be nice to retain the current community feel and spirit.

·         Trees would be affected by the development in this Conservation Area.

·         The visual amenity of the area did not match the aesthetics of the proposed development.

 

Councillor Neil Murray addressed Planning Committee as Ward Advocate representing local residents. He covered the following main points:

 

·         He was sorry to see this application before Planning Committee this evening.

·         It could be the first of many such applications should it be granted permission.

·         The Authority had made steady progress through Article 4 to re address the imbalance of HMOs in the West End of the city.

·         The proposed development would threaten the momentum generated if it were to go ahead, setting a precedent for the future of the area.

·         He could see more and more garden areas disappearing.

·         Development of garden space increased rental income for landlords but was not helpful to residents.

·         Local people wanted each property to retain a decent garden in this nice residential area without extensions/additional builds on green space.

·         No one would buy a family house at 192 West Parade without a garden, and it would remain an HMO for good.

·         This planning application represented over development right on the edge of the existing HMO area.

·         It would have a negative impact on the amenity of neighbours.

·         It was also on a traffic junction which caused additional issues.

·         There was a negative effect on parking in the area hence the reason why residents parking was provided.

·         There would be additional awkward vehicular manoeuvres on an already busy road, particularly during peak school run hours.

·         The proposed development set the signal that it was okay to site flats in peoples back gardens.

·         As a Planning Authority we should not be sending this signal especially in an HMO area.

 

Gareth Johnson addressed Planning Committee on behalf of the agent for the application, covering the following main points:

 

·         He represented the architect for the planning application.

·         He thanked members of Planning Committee for allowing him the opportunity to speak on behalf of his client.

·         The original application had been withdrawn as two residential units had not been considered as appropriate and would not be supported.

·         The planning application was now resubmitted as a modest single storey development.

·         This would be a self-contained dwelling.

·         There was no proposed access or sharing of amenities with 192 West Parade.

·         The Highways Authority had raised no issues in relation to safety, capacity, or parking.

·         An S184 agreement would be entered into for the construction of, site access and the existing dropped kerb would be reinstated.

·         His client was happy to sign a 106 agreement to prevent occupation by students should members of Planning Committee consider this to be appropriate.

 

The Committee discussed the content of the report in further detail.

 

The following comments were put forward in support of the proposals:

 

·         This additional dwelling would provide variety in the area for a couple or single person.

·         The design was intended to look like the outbuilding it was replacing.

·         The amount of garden space lost was in the member’s view not substantial and replaced in part the original build.

·         The development proposed was modest in size.

·         The Highways Authority had raised no concerns.

·         The development was in a Conservation Area; however, Planning Officers had worked together with the agent for the application to produce an option for this site moving forwards.

·         There would be no student occupation.

·         The trees referred to would be protected.

 

The following matters of concern in relation to the planning application were raised by members:

 

·         Had the proposed development been on the footprint of the existing garage it would be acceptable, however, it set a precedent for similar development in an already densely populated area.

·         Concerns were raised relating to properties being squeezed into green space.

·         Although the city was in desperate need of additional housing, we also required green life around us.

·         Residents’ concerns regarding the design of the build would be assisted by the introduction of a condition requiring site of further detail on materials to be used and how the build fitted into the local area.

·         It was hoped the build would be set back a little.

·         Concerns that the proposed development did not fit into the local area.

·         It was hoped that off-street parking provision would allow surface water to pass through it.

 

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

 

·         The use of materials would be a condition of grant of planning permission to include minimum details of red brick with a slate roof. Samples of materials to be used could also be added as an additional condition.

·         The proposed development was set back slightly.

·         In terms of provision of off-street parking, materials to be used and surface materials could be conditioned accordingly to allow adequate drainage.

 

A motion was proposed, seconded and:

 

RESOLVED that a condition on the use/samples of materials be included as an additional condition imposed subject to grant of planning permission.

 

RESOLVED that the application for planning permission be refused.

 

Reasons:

 

1.    The proposed dwelling would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area by virtue of its position and therefore relationship with the street.

 

2.    This relationship combined with the removal of garden space for 192 West Parade would strike a discordant note in paragraph 72 of the street scene contrary to LP 26 and paragraphs 197 of the NPPF and Listed Building Act.