Agenda item

The Assistant Director of Planning:

 

a)    reported that planning permission was sought for the proposed erection of a single storey side and rear extension to a two storey end-terrace dwelling at 15 Fleet Street Lincoln, located within Flood Zone 2

 

b)    reported that the application had been revised during the process following officer concerns regarding the scale of the original proposal, which would have covered a large proportion of the rear yard, extending up to the side boundary of the site and within 0.29m of the side boundary

 

c)    added that these concerns raised issues both in terms of visual and residential amenity; officers were more comfortable with the scale of the revised proposal submitted and a re-consultation had since been undertaken

 

d)    advised that the application was brought before Planning Committee as it had received more than 4 objections and had been called in by Councillor Lucinda Preston and Councillor Neil Murray

 

e)    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) 2023/0537/CLE; the dwelling could therefore be occupied as a C4 HMO which permitted up to 6 individuals to live within the property

 

f)     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

 

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

 

·         Accordance with National and Local Planning Policy

·         Impact on Residential Amenity

·         Impact on Visual Amenity

·         Highway Safety, Access and Parking

·         Flood Risk

·         Reducing Energy Consumption

 

h)    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

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

 

·         She strongly objected to the planning application.

·         The proposed extension would reduce the outdoor space of the property.

·         The Victorian aspect of the house would also be affected.

·         There would be an adverse affect on those people living in the property.

·         Issues of lack of privacy.

·         The owner of this property also owned similar dwellings. He had a tendency to add in extra bedrooms.

·         Issues of impact on available car parking space.

·         The proposed single storey side and rear extension was inappropriate to the area and local residents.

·         The planning application would have an adverse impact on the local community and the West End.

 

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

 

·         She spoke on behalf of Helen Thompson, neighbour to the application property, together with the residents in the street as a whole and also the residents of the West End.

·         The proposed extension was wholly inappropriate.

·         The property would be massively extended.

·         It would have an adverse impact on the neighbours of the property.

·         This application was one of a series being submitted by the same person.

·         Issues of loss of light to the neighbouring property.

·         The outdoor space would be affected.

·         Issues of overlooking.

·         Issues of loss of amenity due to the size of the extension.

·         Loss of another family home as the residents next door would leave.

·         The proposed development did not reflect the character of the West End.

·         An application in a nearby street was refused planning permission in 2021 for the same reasons, which set a precedent.

·         Climate crisis – the development would be an encroachment on green space, allowing concrete to be covered over with no lawn or bedding plants.

·         One of the City Council’s strategic priorities focussed on enhancing our public space.

·         The proposal would result in a domino effect across the city with far less green space available in the West End.

·         Lack in biodiversity- reduced habitat for birds and insects.

·         The West End was an urban space but not a concrete wasteland.

·         She urged members of Planning Committee to support local residents concerns, particularly those of the immediate neighbour here.

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

 

The following concerns emerged in relation to the planning application:

 

·         This planning application had received opposition from all three Ward Councillors and multiple objections from members of the public.

·         Loss of green space.

·         The Council was committed to the local environment.

·         The application should be refused on the grounds of loss of green space/overlooking.

·         It did not add to the local character of the area.

 

The following points were also made in relation to the proposed plans:

 

·         Refused planning applications tended to go to appeal at the risk of costs awarded against the Planning Authority.

·         Any refusal of planning permission required strong material planning reasons.

·         The extension would improve the amenity of people living in the property.

·         It was difficult to understand how there would be any great loss of amenity to the neighbour.

·         As a city we owed a great debt to the residents of the West End in the past protesting against houses in multiple occupation, resulting in the introduction of Article 4 legislation.

 

The Chair made the following personal observations:

 

·         The property was an existing Small House in Multiple Occupation which allowed occupation by up to six individuals. Further planning permission would be required if this occupancy was exceeded.

·         The single storey side extension had permitted development rights and negated any overlook.

·         The cumulative impact across the Ward was not within the remit of this Planning Committee this evening.

·         There was still some amenity space around and in the property itself.

·         On material planning grounds it was difficult for planning permission to be refused.

 

The following questions were raised:

 

·         The single side extension did not need planning permission, would the additional extension to the rear living/kitchen/dining area result in the existing window moving further into the garden area?

·         Why didn’t the bathroom have a bath?

·         Which property extension was refused for reasons of overlooking as mentioned earlier?

 

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

 

·         In terms of loss of green space, this would be reduced although there was still garden amenity space left.

·         Each application should be considered on its individual merits. Any refusal carried a risk of appeal and costs to be awarded.

·         The streets in the area typically had relatively narrow rear yards. Any addition to the building would have an impact, however, officers were of the opinion that there would not be any further overlooking as a result of the proposals than that already in existence, and that this was insufficient to warrant refusal of planning permission.

·         In respect of the layout of the bathroom, the Planning Authority could not dictate an internal configuration which was out of the remit of planning control.

·         In terms of any precedent being set, he was not aware of the specifics of the previous application referred to; each application must be dealt with on its own merits.

·         Members were tasked with assessing the level of harm that would be created from the planning proposal. Officer advice was that it was not sufficient to warrant refusal of planning permission.

 

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

 

Conditions

 

Standard Conditions

 

·         Development commenced within 3 years

·         In accordance with the approved plans

·         Installation of 1.8m high fence prior to the extension first coming into us