Agenda item

The Assistant Director of Planning:

 

a)    referred to the application property at 15 Allison Street, a two storey mid-terraced dwelling

 

b)    advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of single- storey rear extension to the existing property

 

c)    reported that a certificate of existing lawfulness was granted this year for the continued use of the property as a Small House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) 2017/1419/CLE., allowing the dwelling to be occupied as a C4 HMO which permitted up to 6 individuals to live within the property

 

d)    advised that the application was brought before Planning Committee as it had been called in by Councillor Lucinda Preston and Councillor Neil Murray

 

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

 

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

·         Policy S53: Design and Amenity

·         Policy S13: Reducing Energy Consumption in Buildings

 

f)     provided details of the issues to be assessed in relation to the planning application, as follows:

 

·         Accordance with National and Local Planning Policy

·         Impact on Residential Amenity

·         Impact on Visual Amenity

·         Highway Safety, Access and Parking

·         Reducing Energy Consumption

 

g)    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

h)    referred to the Update Sheet circulated at this evening’s Planning Committee which included an additional response received from Lincolnshire County Council as Local Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority in respect of the proposed planning application

 

i)     concluded that the proposals would not have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties or the visual amenity of the wider area, in accordance with policy S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Councillor Neil Murray addressed Planning Committee in his capacity as Ward Advocate in relation to the proposed planning application, also on behalf of fellow Ward Advocates. He covered the following main points:

 

·         He had been asked to speak on this planning application by local residents.

·         The proposed planning application was similar to a previous one at 13 Albert Crescent, which was rejected by Planning Committee, and upheld at appeal.

·         Allison Street was the most disadvantaged streets in this part of the West End.

·         The houses were close together.

·         Much accommodation was in the rented sector.

·         There were many single parents living there due to its affordability.

·         The proposed extension to the property would increase the amount of concrete in the area.

·         The proposals undermined the spirit of Article 4.

·         The proposed extension was for financial gain only.

·         The garden area to the property would be reduced considerably.

·         The plans were detrimental to the wider area, to this property and to local properties. The planning application should be rejected.

·         When would this type of development be stopped.

 

Councillor Lucinda addressed Planning Committee in her capacity as Ward Advocate in relation to the proposed planning application, also on behalf of fellow Ward Advocates. She made the following main points:

 

·         She spoke on behalf of the local community.

·         The applicant was a London-based property developer and not local.

·         There were few garden spaces in the area.

·         Single parents/small families lived there.

·         We had to be careful not to price families out of inner city areas.

·         The proposals would have a collective impact on the amenity of local residents.

·         The extension would not offer any improvement to the West End.

·         The garden of the property was designed for use as yard space for hanging out of washing.

·         Precedent could be taken into account here.

·         It was possible to win another appeal.

·         The reason for the appeal being upheld at 13 Albert Crescent had been due to over development in a built up area.

·         The West End should have planted areas and a pleasing environment without loss of amenity to neighbours.

·         This applicant would not continue to submit similar planning applications for his own financial gain.

 

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

 

The following points were raised in support of the planning application:

 

·         The applicant was a business man and property developer, this was his living.

·         Precedents were not mentioned within the officer’s report.

·         Any of these individual property developments in the city freed up another Council property or took a resident off the waiting list.

·         There were many extensions already in existence in the street and this one was no longer in length in comparison.

·         The property next door had a similar extension.

·         The application property would be improved at ground floor level.

·         The garden space was currently set to slab.

 

The following concerns were raised in relation to the planning application:

 

·         It was within the gift of Planning Committee members to take action to refuse a planning application without reference to precedent.

·         Each application should be considered on its own merits.

·         The proposals would increase density by stealth, having a cumulative effect on the inhabitants of one area.

·         These applications reduced green areas.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning reiterated his previous advice to members this evening in relation to the reference to any previous precedent in existence, which as always was to consider each planning application on its own merits.

 

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

 

Conditions

 

·         Development commenced within 3 years

• In accordance with the approved plans