Minutes:
The Planning Team Leader:
a. advised that planning permission was requested for the installation of two rooflights to facilitate the conversion of the loft at 96 High Street to two additional House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) bedrooms (partly retrospective)
b. reported that the rooflights had been installed and internal works to create the rooms and install the staircase had been undertaken, although the rooms had not yet been finished or occupied
c. described the application property, an existing eight bedroom HMO (Sui Generis) with a currently vacant ground floor retail unit; the HMO was granted planning permission in July 2019, together with approval for the erection of a two storey rear extension to accommodate a seven bedroom HMO
d. reported that a subsequent application in 2020 to erect a larger extension to create three HMOs, totalling 22 bedrooms, was refused by members of the Planning Committee; it was considered that the extension would have appeared overbearing, caused loss of light to the occupants of neighbouring properties to the north and that the number of bed spaces would have over-intensified the HMO use to an unacceptable level.
e. detailed the location of the three storey application property:
· On the west side of the High Street, on the corner with Princess Street which continued along the south boundary of the site.
· The property was adjoined to 97-98 High Street to the north, to the rear of which was a part two storey, part single storey off-shoot with a first floor balcony accommodating 3A, B, C and D Princess Street.
f. reported that work commenced to implement the 2019 permission, the HMO use of the main building had been occupied and the extension was under construction, however, the works undertaken thus far on the extension were to a poor standard and not in accordance with the approved plans
g. clarified that the Enforcement Team was dealing with the matter and the applicant had been advised that the extension would need to be removed, and that the existing building should be made good or the extension re-built in accordance with approved plans
h. highlighted that the site was located within the St Peter at Gowts Conservation Area
i. advised that the application was presented to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Watt
j. referred to the site history to the application property as detailed within the officer’s report
k. provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:
· Policy S13:Reducing Energy Consumption in Existing Buildings
· Policy S25: Sub-Division and Multi-Occupation of Dwellings within Lincoln.
· Policy S53: Design and Amenity
· Policy S57: The Historic Environment
The Committee discussed the content of the report in further detail.
The following comments were received from members:
· Concerns regarding the rear of the property and the poor standard of building work were being dealt with by the Enforcement Team.
· The skylights had been checked by the building inspectors and were not considered to be intrusive.
· This poor standard of this build had received many complaints to one councillor even though it was not in his ward.
· Officers were satisfied that this application before us this evening for skylights was safe.
Members asked for a response to both letters detailed at page 185 of the report.
The Planning Team Leader offered the following points of clarification:
· The build standard was being dealt with via enforcement action.
· Taking down of wires was a private matter between the two neighbours concerned.
· The extension did have planning permission granted in 2019.
· This planning application related to the roof lights only.
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted, subject to the following conditions:
Supporting documents: