Agenda item

The Assistant Director for Planning:

 

1. advised that the application proposed the change of use of the property at 69 Carholme Road from an existing Guest House (Class C1) to 6 No. one bedroomed flats (Class C3) and the erection of a 2-storey rear extension and associated external alterations

 

2. described the application property, also known as Brancaster House; an attractive 2 storey mid-terraced townhouse with frontage onto Carholme Road, remaining unoccupied for some time

 

3. advised that the current lay-out arranged over three floors comprised an entrance hall, living room, dining room, reception room, kitchen, conservatory, attached one-bedroomed annexe with living room and shower to the ground floor, with three bedrooms and bathroom to the first floor and two further bedrooms to the second floor

 

4. confirmed that the property fronted onto Carholme Road with access to the rear via Wellington Street; the surrounding area was predominantly residential with a mixture of guest houses, residential dwellings, Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO’s) and several commercial properties on Carholme Road, which served as a busy traffic route into the City Centre, relatively close to the University of Lincoln

 

5. referred to a previous planning application for the property for change of use from Guest House (Class C1) to a 9 bedroomed HMO which was refused planning permission on 9 January 2020

 

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

 

·         Policy LP1: A Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

·         Policy LP10: Meeting Accommodation Needs

·         Policy LP26: Design and Amenity

·         Policy LP37: Sub-Division and Multi-Occupation of Dwellings within Lincoln 86

·         National Planning Policy Framework

 

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

 

·         Planning Policy Context

·         Effect upon the Residential and Local Amenity

·         Effect on Highway Safety

·         Flood Risk

·         Other Matters

 

8. outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

9. referred to the Update Sheet tabled at the meeting which included additional photographs submitted plus an updated block plan in respect of the proposed development

 

10. concluded that:

 

 

Mr T Shelton, local resident, addressed Planning Committee in objection to the application, covering the following points:

 

·         He lived next door to the application site.

·         The boundary wall to the proposed development which the applicant wished to remove was in fact his garden wall. A 6-foot-high fence was proposed in its place; however, his garden was 2 feet higher than the application site, reducing the height difference to 4 feet. The garden was used regularly for barbeques, drying washing, dog exercising, and relaxing. The proposals would affect the privacy of the household in this respect. The boundary wall should be retained for this reason.

·         The gutter/downpipe from his property which discharged onto the roof of the existing extension next door (shown in the photograph on the Update Sheet) would need to be replaced at the builder’s cost, to facilitate the removal of rainwater.

·         Sound proofing was required to avoid transfer of noise through internal walls.

·         If it was decided that the boundary wall was to be replaced by a fence, he requested the best side of the fence be placed his side as it did represent his boundary.

·         In summary his concerns related to the effect on the privacy of his household should the development go ahead and noise issues.

·         He also wished to put on record that he had received no contact from anyone at the Council or acknowledgement of the letter he submitted. He was forced to chase the Council to ask to speak this evening.

 

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

 

The following comments emerged from discussions held:

 

·         There was already sufficient student accommodation in the area; it was pleasing to see that an S106 agreement restricting accommodation for students would be signed should the development be granted planning permission.

·         The assumption within the officer’s report that the property was unlikely to return to a family home was questioned. There were two recent cases where offices had reverted to family homes and another from an HMO.

·         It was sensed that local residents were questioning the spirit of Article 4 here. This definitely was not the case. The Council viewed its obligations very seriously.

·         Surely the best way forward regarding the boundary wall was through intelligent conversations between the developer and local residents to come to an agreement to the satisfaction of both parties.

·         There was a high concentration of development in the area and this proposal would add to this.

 

The following questions emerged from discussions held:

 

·         Question: Was the applicant being relied on to prevent students from residing in these properties as a one bedroomed flat without parking seemed to ‘fit the bill’ for student living very nicely?

·         Question: It was noted that two of the proposed flats would be 2 square metres below nationally agreed space standards. At what point did we decide was an insufficient size?

·         Question: How far were the flats below nationally agreed space standards?

·         Response by Chair: By two metres, however only two of the six flats.

·         Question: How could we monitor that the flats were not occupied by students?

·         Question: There was no plan for parking in front of the flats. Would there be an element of landscaping included as part of the scheme?

·         Question: How long had the property been empty? This would be a substantial property for a family home. Flats may be a better option for long time use.

·         Question: What use had the property held before it was a Guest House?

·         Question: Why did the Upper Witham Drainage Board refer in its representation to 7 one-bedroomed flats and not six as per that applied for?

·         Question: Could officers give any advice to the speaker on his concerns regarding the boundary wall?

 

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

 

·         In terms of enforcement of the S106 agreement; any action would be dependent on an initial complaint being received which would then be investigated. An Enforcement Officer would make a site visit. The local authority had more rights in respect of entry powers for enforcement investigations than the police. There was also the potential for Council tax records to be used as evidence of residency as students were exempt from paying this tax.

·         In terms of the size of the flats, only two were 2 square metres below nationally prescribed space standards, as confirmed by the Chair earlier. These standards issued by the Government were guideline figures. They were not part of our policy. In order to be policy, they would need to be in the Local Plan and evidenced accordingly, and this was not the case. Planning Officers were aware of this standard and strived to adhere to it whenever possible. These two flats were slightly below this standard; however, it was considered they would still provide a reasonable level of occupancy for residents.

·         There was no specific landscaping design proposed, however, this matter could be addressed via a condition of grant of planning permission if members were so minded.

·         In terms of a property of this size, although there were some exceptions, our professional view as Planning Officers generally in the context of use as a family home was that such a property would struggle to remain viable on the open market. This property had been for sale for some time. An application was received over a year ago to request permission for conversion to an HMO.

·         In terms of the history of the building, his best estimate was it originated as a single-family residency at one stage, although he was unable to confirm this.

·         The number of flats to be included in the development had been reduced to six through negotiation between officers and the applicant.

·         The ownership of the boundary wall came under the jurisdiction of the applicant. If so minded, members could impose an additional condition on the grant of planning permission requiring boundary treatment works subject to negotiation and agreement between both parties.

 

Motions were proposed, seconded and:

 

RESOLVED that the following requirements be added as additional conditions subject to planning permission being granted.

 

·         Landscaping condition

·         Engagement between officers and the applicant to secure adequate boundary treatment to the agreement of both parties to be imposed.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement that the approved flats were not occupied by students and not entitled to resident parking permits, and subject to the following conditions.

 

Conditions

 

·         Development to commence within 3 years

·         Development to be in accordance with the plans

·         EV Points implemented before use commenced

·         Permitted Development for new openings removed

·         Construction hours restricted

·         Details of all boundary walls and fences, including materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details shall be implemented before the development is first brought into use, and maintained on site in perpetuity.

           Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, privacy, and security and to ensure that the amenities of the area were not adversely affected by the proposed development.

·         The development shall not be occupied until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of the landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

           Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Section 197 of the 1990 Act which required local planning authorities to ensure, where appropriate, that adequate provision was made for the preservation or planting of trees.