Agenda item

The Assistant Director of Planning:

 

a)    referred to a recent briefing note sent to all members for information which clarified the planning situation as it affected applications and associated works to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs)

 

b)    described the application property at 28 Derwent Street, a two storey mid-terraced dwelling

 

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

 

d)    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) 2021/0060/CLE, allowing the dwelling to be occupied as a C4 HMO which permitted up to 6 individuals to live within the property

 

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

 

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 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

·         Other Matters

 

h)    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

i)     referred to the Update Sheet circulated at this evening’s Planning Committee which included an additional response received from Councillor Lucinda Preston in relation to the proposed planning application

 

j)     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. He covered the following main points:

 

·         He had met local residents who had concerns about this planning application.

·         Residents had informed him there was no point attending Planning Committee as planning permission would go ahead anyway. He represented their views.

·         The proposed planning application was similar to previous ones submitted by the same applicant.

·         The proposals represented over development/loss of amenity for local residents.

·         Improvements in the community were important here, the same issue as Ward Advocates spoke to at the last Planning Committee.

·         Garden space was vital for people’s mental health/encouraging wild life/wellbeing.

·         Garden space protected the local environment.

·         Policy S25 referred to sub-division of dwellings which should contribute pleasantly to the local area and not increase the existing concentration.

·         This application represented over concentration of HiMO’s with virtually no garden area remaining.

·         The plans were contrary to the spirit of Article 4, and the position officers had taken in this regard

·         The applicant was in the habit of acquiring houses all over the city to maximise profit over amenity and community considerations.

·         Strictly on environmental concerns this application should be refused.

 

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

 

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

 

·         There would be an element of green area left within the development.

·         Amenity worked both ways. The property was already a HiMO for up to six people, the extension would improve the amenity of the occupants.

·         The majority of the land to be taken up by the extension was currently paving stones and not garden.

·         The committee had to work within material planning grounds. There were no objections from local residents.

·         Each application must be considered on its own merits.

·         The neighbours property had already been extended sideways.

·         The loss of a window would be replaced by another inside.

·         There were no material planning reasons to refuse the application.

 

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

 

·         The Central Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee discussed environmental issues and reduction in pollution.

·         The plans proposed a direct reduction in green space in an already high density area. This was unacceptable in the current economic climate.

·         Amenity should be increased rather than further building on garden land.

·         The plans proposed an extension widened by 1 metre and lengthened by 3.5 metres. Policy S53 supported high quality sustainable design, however, the increase in width of the extension would cover part of the window into the back room reducing natural light, which was not considered to be a good design.

 

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

 

·         Were we being taken advantage of here?

·         Could clarification be given to the purpose of Article 4?

 

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

 

·         In terms of the suggestion we may be taken advantage of, as a planning authority we must treat all residents in the same way with impartiality. There was a similar model of delivery of this application across the city. We as officers had to make recommendations based on material planning considerations.

·         The garden area would be reduced as a result of the proposed extension, however, the area was currently paved and a reasonable amount of amenity space would be retained.

·         Explanation of Article 4 Ten years ago a new use class C4 was introduced which permitted occupancy in dwellings of 3-6 people. A permitted right to change this use class was also introduced. Article 4 reduced the right to this permitted development to change to use class C4. However, this property was not affected. It was already operating as a C4 HiMO and purely represented an application for extension of an existing HiMO.

·         The extension would be wider and involved the removal of an existing window. However, this would be replaced by a new window in the new extension which would be open plan. It would most probably be darker inside although this was a balanced judgement for members to take.

 

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

 

Conditions

 

·         Development commenced within 3 years

·         In accordance with the approved plans