Agenda item

(Councillor Tweddle left the room during the consideration of this item, having declared a personal and pecuniary interest in the matter being debated. She took no part in the discussion or vote on the matter to be determined.)

 

It was proposed, seconded, and:

 

RESOLVED that Councillor Chris Burke be appointed as replacement Chair for this item.

 

The Planning Team Leader:

 

a)    advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of a single rear extension at 45b Mildmay Street, the property being part of a large, terraced building converted to 3 dwellings in the early 2000’s

 

b)    described the location of the site within a well-established residential area, it was not in a conservation area and had no listed buildings close by

 

c)    reported that prior to the submission of the application, the site was subject to extensive negotiations with the agent securing revisions to the proposal to overcome some of the concerns raised by neighbours, resulting in revised plans being submitted, and a re-consultation process carried out

 

d)    provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:

 

·         Policy LP26:Design and Amenity

·         National Planning Policy

 

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

 

·         Planning Policy

·         Effect on Visual Amenity

·         Effect on Residential Amenity

·         Effect on Highway Safety

 

f)     outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

g)    referred to the Update sheet which contained additional consultation  responses received in respect of the proposed application for development, together with an additional recommended condition subject to planning permission being granted to require the applicant to carry out re-rendering works to the rear elevation of the existing property (as shown on the proposed plans) prior to occupation of the proposed extension

 

h)    concluded that the proposed extension 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.

 

Mark Lloyd, local resident, addressed Planning Committee in objection to the proposed development, covering the following main concerns:

 

·         Over development of the site being in close proximity to surrounding buildings.

·         Height/scale/massing.

·         Although the proposal was one storey in height, there was the potential once the footprint was established for addition of a second storey.

·         Negative impact on amenity.

·         Failure to meet housing needs.

·         Overlooking/outlook discounted by proposed roof of extension.

·         Shared access - issues of anti-social behaviour/fear of crime and disorder.

·         Loss of light.

·         Loss of privacy for neighbouring properties.

·         Loss of light to garden.

·         Overbearing/overshadowing.

·         Reasonable expectations of loss of view.

·         Effect on health/well-being.

·         Bin storage taking up lack of outdoor space.

·         Outdoor space should be maintained.

·         Ugly discoloured rendering.

·         Noise and disturbance during construction.

·         Loss of quality and character of townscape area.

·         Expectation of consistency in planning applications.

 

Councillor Donald Nannestad addressed Planning Committee as Ward Advocate on behalf of local residents, covering the following main points:

 

·         Local residents had explained their issues in detail.

·         Local Planning Policy was permissive of alterations to existing buildings providing they related well to the site and surroundings.

·         The alterations to 45b Mildmay Street would make it out of symmetry with the neighbouring properties.

·         Issues of overlooking, overshadowing and loss of light.

·         This problem was particularly apparent to the rear of No 43 as it didn’t get a great deal of light in any case.

·         The proposals would have an adverse effect on the health of neighbouring residents.

·         Issues with narrow footpath.

·         Access issues to the passageway running behind the houses.

·         It was very difficult for pedestrians to negotiate a way around parked vehicles at peak school hours.

·         Comments made in relation to lack of compliance with Policy LP26: Design and Amenity.

·         This was an area where there had been issues connected to traffic congestion and anti-social behaviour at the rear of the passageway entrance.

·         There was already a small storage area for six wheelie bins to serve three existing flats.

 

Patrick Douse addressed Planning Committee on behalf of the Applicant in support of the planning application, covering the following main points:

 

·         The application property had been purchased 18 months previously by his client.

·         It had not undergone any investment for a number of years.

·         45 and 45a Mildmay Street had since undergone internal renovation and had been re-let.

·         The outside space at 45B was not utilised due to lack of security and currently lacked a lounge, kitchen and dining room area.

·         The intention was for the inside space to be increased taking advantage the previous unused outdoor space.

·         The proposals represented a simple extension to enhance the area.

·         The extension would match with the existing building.

·         The view from Olive Street would not be affected.

·         Another property in the street had a large double-storey extension which took away the yard, whereas this build was only a single storey.

·         The property at 45B would be newly rendered and visual impact improved at the rear.

·         The design had been carefully chosen/set back to avoid overshadowing

·         Noise/disturbance would be kept to a minimum during construction hours.

 

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

 

The following comments were received from members:

 

·         The property had been split into three flats for some time. The owner was aiming to improve the amenity of the present tenants.

·         The Highways Authority had not raised any concerns.

·         This was a single storey extension only.

·         The applicant had responded to concerns expressed by  neighbours in relation to security with the inclusion of dusk to dawn lights on the end of the extension.

·         In terms of Policy LP26 and the proposed extension relating well to the site and surroundings, it would be a shame if it resulted in the view over the back of the buildings being obscured as the view was an interesting part of the existing townscape.

·         Security to the back of the street would be affected.

·         The passageway had been in existence for a long time.

 

The following questions were received from members:

 

·         Where would space for six wheelie bins to serve three flats be accommodated?

·         Was it possible for a condition to be imposed on grant of planning permission requiring an area to be provided capable of accommodating a minimum of 6 storage bins on site?

·         Was the extension to be fully cladded or did it contain some brickwork detail?

·         The passageway had been in existence for a long time. Was it possible for additional lighting to be erected in that area to make the locals feel less vulnerable to anti-social behaviour?

 

The Planning Team Leader offered the following points of clarification to members:

 

·         There was agreed storage included within the plans for 4 wheelie bins, however, it was possible should members be so minded to impose a condition to require provision of a storage facility sufficient to enclose six bins.

·         In terms of rendering, the elevation would be of brick to match the existing end gable, then the rear existing rendered wall would be painted to match.

·         He did not anticipate there would be additional anti-social behaviour to that already in existence as a result of the proposed extension.

 

A motion was moved, seconded, voted on and carried that provision of a storage facility for six wheelie bins be provided on site.

 

The proposed condition included within the update sheet to require the applicant to carry out re-rendering works to the rear elevation of the existing property (as shown on the proposed plans) prior to occupation of the proposed extension was also supported by members.

 

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

 

• Time limit of the permission
• Development in accordance with approved plans
• Implementation of bin storage for six bins.
• Applicant to carry out re-rendering works to the rear elevation of the existing property (as shown on the proposed plans) prior to occupation of the proposed extension.