Agenda item

(Councillor Longbottom returned to the room and re-took her seat as a member of Planning Committee.)

 

The Assistant Director of Planning:

 

a)    referred to the application property at 35 Gresham Street, a two storey terraced property

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

·         Policy S53: Design and Amenity

 

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

 

·         National and Local Planning Policy

·         Principle of the Development

·         Impact on the Amenity of Nearby Properties and Occupants of the Dwelling

·         Design and Impact on Visual Amenity

·         Highway Safety, Access and Parking

 

f)     outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

g)    concluded that the proposals would not have a detrimental impact on the residential and visual amenity of neighbouring properties, nor the amenity of the occupiers of the host property, 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. The following main points were made:

 

·         He had been asked to speak on behalf of the residents in Gresham Street, who felt the Council would just do as it liked.

·         The proposals resulted in another extension being crammed in the area.

·         The proposal would cause cumulative harm to the amenity of the area and be a bad outcome.

·         Garden areas were beneficial for people and the environment.

·         This application and others before us this evening undermined the spirit of Article 4 and were for personal profit only.

·         There were lots of existing empty houses in the West End.

·         The proposals would bury another garden area.

·         When would garden areas be protected by this Council?

·         He urged Planning Committee to refuse planning permission based on loss of amenity for existing occupants, residential neighbours and the wider community.

 

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:

 

·         It was in the gift of Planning Committee to turn down this planning application. There were precedents to be referred to.

·         The same landlord was buying up many houses in the City against the expectations of Article 4.

·         This application affected local residents and concreted over another back garden.

·         She urged that this planning application was rejected.

 

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

 

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

 

·         Residents should not feel we were not interested in their views, which was the reason for holding this meeting.

·         There were no planning grounds to refuse this planning application without it being rejected by a Planning Inspector.

·         The planning officer’s report stated that there were no other properties in the vicinity which would be physically affected by the proposal and it was therefore in accordance with Central Lincolnshire Local Plan Policy S53.

·         The control over houses in multiple occupation was supported, however there was little power in this case. The existing property set-up with a divided roofline would look much neater as a unified extension.

·         The proposed extension would be 2.4 metres longer than the one next door. However, some of the other properties in the row had longer extensions. Non could not be seen from the street itself.

·         There would still be a lot of remaining garden left.

·         Should the legal occupancy of the property be exceeded then appropriate action would be taken by the Planning Authority to address this.

·         Planning Committee was not able to enforce the requirement to keep garden space, it must operate within Planning law.

 

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

 

·         Article 4 legislation was brought in to address concentration of houses in multiple occupation and to limit over development.

·         The proposed extension would have an impact on its neighbours.

·         Loss of another garden.

·         Central Lincolnshire Local Plan Policy S53 was applicable in this instance in that we must build more houses, however, it was not applicable in that there was a need to build conurbations away from built- up areas.

·         The proposals would have a cumulative effect in the West End.

·         If as a local authority we believed in carbon reduction we should be protecting gardens.

·         The proposed extension was wider than that existing. The window would be vastly reduced in size which would restrict natural light into the property.

 

Clarification was sought as to the reference to a ‘precedent’ by Councillor Preston.

 

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

 

·         In relation to the reference to any previous precedent in existence, the advice of officers as always was to consider each planning application on its own merits.

·         Precedent to another planning application could be a relative consideration if the property was close by and there were similar key issues, however, each application should still be considered on its own merits.

·         Article 4 was introduced in 2015, this property was registered prior to this time as a C4 House in Multiple Occupation and there was no requirement for it to hold a certificate of lawful use.

·         In terms of light into the middle extension room, it was at the discretion of Planning Committee to determine how much weight should be attributed to this matter.

 

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

 

Conditions

 

·         3 years for implementation

·         Accordance with approved drawings.