Agenda item

The Assistant Director of Planning:

 

a)    referred to the application property at 30 Whitehall Grove, a two storey terraced dwelling

 

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

 

c)    reported that the proposals had been revised at the request of the case officer to reduce the overall footprint and projection of the proposed development, to maintain an element of existing garden amenity space

 

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

 

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

 

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

·         Policy S53: Design and Amenity

 

f)     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

 

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 Councillor Lucinda Preston in respect of the proposed planning application together with an objection from a local resident

 

i)     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.

 

Mr David Mitchell, local resident addressed Planning Committee in objection to the planning application, covering the following main points:

 

·         He was not here to interfere with the statutory planning process.

·         He asked that a decision on the planning application be deferred tonight, as per his e mail to Councillor B Bushell, Chair.

·         He lived at No 26 Whitehall Grove.

·         He wished it to be known there was a blatant disregard by the contractors of council rules.

·         Work had already started at the property on Monday 15 January 2024.

·         The whole house had been gutted.

·         The central chimney had been taken down and the back walls knocked through.

·         There was a rumour that a dormer window would be installed.

·         Whitehall Grove was frequently blocked by the contractors.

·         There were no statutory notices posted on the roadways.

·         The statutory notices were still posted on the premises at no 28 from the previous year.

·         Work had damaged his roof.

·         The windows were half obscured and there was no light. It was felt that the developer was riding roughshod over the City of Lincoln Council.

·         He urged the planning application be deferred for a site visit to make sure safe and legal working practices were being observed.

 

Councillor Neil Murray addressed Planning Committee in his capacity as Ward Advocate in relation to the proposed planning application. He covered the following main points:

 

·         The proposed planning application was another submitted by the same applicant.

·         The properties were being developed intensively to cram in more residents simply for financial gain.

·         Garden space was good for residents and the local environment.

·         The council was committed to do all it could to protect the environment.

·         Another nice garden would be lost.

·         There would be no amenity left for the residents of the property.

·         Policy S25 suggested that planning extensions should not lead to over concentration of existing use. Provision should also be made for external communal uses.

·         He hoped that Planning Committee in making its decision would ensure these issues were addressed.

·         He represented the residents in the local area, most of them being unhappy with the proposals.

·         There were material considerations here in that there was no provision for an external communal area.

·         The cumulative effect on the local community also undermined amenity

·         The planning application should be rejected.

 

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

 

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

 

·         If the issues regarding the actions of the contractor were true the planning application should be deferred.

·         Retrospective planning applications were bad news.

·         The planning application should be deferred for environmental reasons.

·         The proposals involved loss of amenity and no garden space. However, planning permission was not required to gut the inside of a building.

·         There would only be 1.6 metres of amenity space at the end of the extension. The occupants would be adversely affected and on balance it would prevent the property being able to be reverted back to C3 domestic use in future years.

 

The following questions/comments were made in relation to the planning application:

 

·         There was minimal external space here. Where would the refuse bins be stored?

·         How would the extension be widened?

·         The extension would look aesthetically pleasing if the roof material used was of original slate.

 

(Councillor Strengiel left the meeting at this point in proceedings having another committed engagement.)

 

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

 

·         Each planning application should be considered on its own merits.

·         Works going ahead at the property were being investigated by the City of Lincoln Council and the County Council in relation to permission required for placing skips on the public highway.

·         The knocking down of internal walls was classed as permitted development.

·         Planning officers could not see value in the application being deferred.

·         Planning Committee had sufficient information before them to make a decision on the proposals this evening.

·         Garden space was reduced.

·         The potential for the property to revert back to a C3 dwelling in the future would be limited should planning permission for the extension be granted.

 

A motion was proposed, seconded, put to the vote and carried that planning permission be refused.

 

Members discussed the reasons for refusal of planning permission.

 

A motion was proposed, seconded, put to the vote and carried that planning permission be refused due to the following reasons:

 

1. The proposed extension would create a footprint that would lead to a significant reduction in the existing limited garden and amenity space available to future residents of the property, resulting in a built density that would be at odds with the character of the area and causing unacceptable harm to the amenity of the occupants of the premises and neighbouring properties. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Central Lincolnshire Local Plan Policy S53 and paragraphs 128 and 135 the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2. The extension of the property as proposed would result in a building that was of a character and of a size that it was unlikely to be attractive to future purchasers for the purpose of being returned to a use as a single dwelling. Consequently, the existing imbalance in the local community, recognised in the Fordham Report that the Council commissioned and which led directly to the introduction of the Article 4 to control changes of use from C3 to C4 in the City, would not be improved and may be further eroded which would be harmful the character of the area and to the residential amenity of neighbouring residents.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused, due to the following reasons:

 

1. The proposed extension would create a footprint that would lead to a significant reduction in the existing limited garden and amenity space available to future residents of the property, resulting in a built density that would be at odds with the character of the area and causing unacceptable harm to the amenity of the occupants of the premises and neighbouring properties. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Central Lincolnshire Local Plan Policy S53 and paragraphs 128 and 135 the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2. The extension of the property as proposed would result in a building that was of a character and of a size that it was unlikely to be attractive to future purchasers for the purpose of being returned to a use as a single dwelling. Consequently, the existing imbalance in the local community, recognised in the Fordham Report that the Council commissioned and which led directly to the introduction of the Article 4 to control changes of use from C3 to C4 in the City, would not be improved and may be further eroded which would be harmful the character of the area and to the residential amenity of neighbouring residents.