Agenda item

(Councillor Bean, Liz Bushell and Hewson returned to the meeting and re-took their seats as members of Planning Committee)

 

Councillor Debbie Armiger left the room during the discussion of this item having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in respect of the planning application to be considered. She took no part in the discussion or vote on the matter to be determined.)

 

The Assistant Director of Planning:

 

a)    reported that the planning permission was sought for the erection of single storey extensions to the existing property at 20 Avondale Street; a two storey terraced property with additional accommodation in the roof

 

b)    reported that the property had the benefit of a Certificate of Lawful use for its use as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) for up to 6 occupants (C4) and the use of the property would remain as a HMO

 

c)    advised that the application was made retrospectively as works had been completed without planning permission

 

d)    added that recent works to the property also included internal renovation and the conversion of the loft with a rear dormer window, these works were permitted development and did not form part of this application

 

e)    reported that the application was brought before Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Smalley and Councillor Christopher

 

f)     described the history to the application site as detailed within the officer’s report

 

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

 

·         Policy LP26   Design and Amenity

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

 

h)    advised Planning 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

·         Impact on Residential Amenity

·         Impact on Visual Amenity

·         Highway Safety, Access and Parking

 

i)     outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

j)     referred to the Update sheet which included further representations received in respect of the proposed planning development

 

k)    concluded that the proposed extensions were 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.

 

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

 

·         She thanked members for allowing her the opportunity to speak.

·         She was speaking on behalf of the residents at the bottom half of Avondale Street.

·         This was a retrospective planning application. Consultations had not been viewed by local residents.

·         Builders had sprayed over resident parking signage to allow parking of construction vehicles.

·         Information signage regarding the consultation process had been removed from the area.

·         Businessmen were buying up existing HMO’s to increase the size of bedrooms to receive more rental income.

·         The area was occupied by a large transient population/people passing through.

·         Community spirit had all gone.

·         Litter and Anti-Social Behaviour was rife in the area.

·         Planning Committee members were in control of the development of housing in this area.

·         The applicant had failed to submit a planning application before the work commenced.

·         Objections had not been submitted because this was a retrospective planning application.

·         Residents had enlisted the help of Councillors Smalley and Christopher to represent their views.

·         Residents parking signage remained torn out and piles of building material had been left in parking areas.

·         The scheme was an overdevelopment

·         Over massing issues

·         Overlooking issues.

·         The proposals were intended to maximise profitability.

·         Residents were desperate for action to stop these types of development to existing properties.

 

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

 

·         This retrospective planning application was submitted following an investigation by Planning Officers.

·         She was concerned that residents had not been allowed to make comments.

·         There were issues with contractors working hours, noise and disturbance.

·         The extension resulted in a reduction in outdoor space.

·         The number of bedrooms would be increased, which impacted on the local community.

·         There was already a limit in the number of parking spaces in the street and residents permits were issued.

·         This application may set a precedent for remaining HMO’s to be extended which impacted on services in the area.

 

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

 

The following comments were made by members:

 

·         A lot of the objections focussed on issues dealt with under separate policies e.g. HMO’s, Residents Parking, Anti-Social Behaviour, Community Policing, Public Protection and Anti-Social Behaviour Team. Although these were valid issues, they did not form a basis for refusal of planning permission.

·         Members shared sympathy with the problems residents had been exposed to.

·         Some of the alterations had been made under permitted development. The only matter to be considered today was the extension at the rear of the property.

·         The property was already an existing HMO, there was no material reason for refusal of planning consent.

·         It was surprising this was a retrospective planning application as the architect who drew up the plans would of informed the applicant that planning permission was needed for the build.

 

Councillor Strengiel highlighted that he was totally against retrospective planning applications, and that he could not support this planning application.

 

The following questions were received from members:

 

·         Had the Planning Authority undertaken its normal consultation process involving individual letters sent to affected properties, as there were no local objections to this planning application?

·         How large were dormer extensions allowed to be built before planning consent was required?

 

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

 

·         Six bedrooms were proposed here under permitted development whereas 7 bedrooms would require planning consent.

·         There was a residents parking scheme currently in operation in the area.

·         In relation to the problem of building materials left on the street, there was a requirement for builders to seek a licence from Lincolnshire County Council to position a skip on the highway for refuse disposal.

·         A letter had been sent to every property sharing a boundary with the application site and also to Councillors as part of the consultation process.

·         There was no requirement for a wider site notice to be erected as the proposed use as a HMO already existed.

·         The dormer size of the proposed extension was 40 metres. A future member workshop would be arranged for Planning Committee members to discuss the size of builds classed as permitted development and those requiring planning permission

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted.