Agenda item

The Planning Team Leader:

 

a)    advised that planning permission was sought for the conversion of a building to 6 apartments and erection of 3 dwellings (revised plans)

 

b)    described the application site previously forming the existing Post Office and Social Club associated car park and grounds, located on the corner of Dunkirk Road and Mons Road, with existing access taken from Mons Road

 

c)    advised that the site was surrounded by residential dwellings, with the existing table tennis club building positioned immediately to the north

 

d)    reported that the proposal had been subject to pre application advice and further officer discussions during the application process which had resulted in revisions to the original layout to accommodate further parking spaces following the initial response from Highways and local residents

 

e)    highlighted that whilst the revised scheme had altered the layout of the new build plots, the number and size of the dwellings remained as originally submitted, and further information had also been sought in relation to energy efficiency, landscaping and biodiversity net gain

 

f)     reported that the application had been brought to Planning Committee as it had received more than 4 objections as well as a request from Ward Councillor Nannestad following the initial round of consultation

 

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

 

·         National Planning Policy Framework

·         Policy S1: The Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy

·         Policy S3: Housing in the Lincoln Urban Area, Main Towns and Market Towns

·         Policy S6: Design Principles for Efficient Buildings

·         Policy S7: Reducing Energy Consumption - Residential Development

·         Policy S13: Reducing Energy Consumption in Existing Buildings

·         Policy S49: Parking Provision

·         Policy S53: Design and Amenity

·         Policy S61: Biodiversity Opportunity and Delivering Measurable Net Gains

 

h)    provided details of the issues pertaining to the application, as follows:

 

·         Accordance with National and Local Planning Policy

·         Impact on Amenity of Neighbouring Uses and Future Occupiers of the Premises

·         Impact on Visual Amenity

·         Contaminated Land

·         Energy Efficiency

·         Landscaping and Biodiversity

·         Highway Safety, Access and Parking

 

i)     outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

j)     referred to the Update Sheet circulated at this evening’s Planning Committee which included an additional response received from an objector, and supporting photographs in respect of the proposed planning application

 

k)    concluded that:

 

·         The development would provide new sustainable and energy efficient housing stock on an existing brownfield site, converting an unused building and providing a number of new build units.

·         The proposals would be of a suitable size and scale commensurate to the locality and would not result in any undue harm to existing residents within the area.

·         The development would also create a net gain in biodiversity on site.

 

Rebecca Smith, local resident, addressed Planning Committee in objection to the proposed planning application, covering the following main points:

 

·         She had no objection in principle with the repurposing of the land.

·         The issue was the development of the existing car park and 3 houses, together with 3 car parking spaces.

·         The design and layout would have an impact on the Mons Road/Dunkirk Road junction which was in effect a blind junction.

·         The revisions to the site layout and siting of parking spaces 1, 2 & 3 raised new issues.

·         The construction of car parking spaces 1 and 2 fell below the 10 metre Highway Authority guidelines of 10 metres between the road junction and the vehicular access, via a dropped kerb.

·         This caused a hazard for pedestrians.

·         A street light would need to be moved 7.5 metres to accommodate the third car parking space.

·         The Planning Authority had indicated the repositioning of the street light was a private matter between the agent for the development and the Highway Authority.

·         The moving of the street light should be a material planning consideration.

·         Due to the current situation of the site biodiversity net gain would be easily achieved.

·         The gardens of the proposed developments at 12 metres square including space for refuse bins would result in little more than standing room.

·         There would be limited privacy/noise issues.

·         The proposed flats did meet lighting requirements, however, all but one or two looked out onto an enclosed space.

·         She urged Planning Committee members to take into consideration the poor design in relation to the car parking spaces in the interest of protecting pedestrian safety.

 

Councillor Donald Nannestad addressed Planning Committee in his capacity as Ward Advocate in relation the proposed planning application, covering the following main points:

 

·         He was not against the proposed use of the planning application for housing, which made logical sense.

·         His concerns focussed on the number of proposed properties and the detail of the planning application.

·         The parking arrangements were not right.

·         The Design and Access Statement was more realistic than the supporting photographs on the Update Sheet showing lines of parked vehicles evident.

·         Parking arrangements for existing developments across the road at Blenheim Square and Cambrai Close were inadequate resulting in chaotic and potentially dangerous parking in the area, apparently due to a lack of foresight into how many residents would own cars.

·         It was important to get the number of car parking spaces correct. He could only see twelve on the proposed plans, although reference had been made by officers to thirteen. There was no provision for a visitor space.

·         The layout of this difficult road junction would not be assisted by creating further homes.

·         Amenity space for residents was minimal within the proposed development which was not conducive to good mental health.

·         He requested members of Planning Committee to consider his concerns.

 

Chris Henderson, representing the Applicant, addressed Planning Committee in support of the proposed Planning application covering the following main points:

 

·         He offered thanks to members of Planning Committee for allowing him the opportunity to speak.

·         All relevant planning issues had been addressed.

·         The application site was a redundant Brownfield site in the city previously running as a business which was no longer in operation and not viable.

·         In accordance with national and local planning policy, sustainable developments should be approved without delay.

·         The planning proposals met local policies S3, S6, S7,S13 in relation to residential development.

·         Policy S61 was also met in respect of satisfying needs for biodiversity net gain.

·         The objections from residents to the proposed development related to parking and highway safety.

·         The applicant had carried out further discussions with planning officers during the application process to ensure the development met with local planning policy S49 and the Central Lincoln Local Plan (CLLP).

·         Visibility at the road junction had been improved.

·         The Highway Authority were in support of the revised scheme.

·         The repositioning of the lamp post affected by the car parking space to a safe location would be agreed with the Highway Authority.

·         The proposed development met all aims of the newly adopted CLLP and all relevant policies.

·         He respectfully requested that planning permission be approved.

 

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

 

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

 

·         The planning officers report referred to the Highway Authority not having commented on the concerns with the existing junction of Dunkirk Road/Mons Road, however then stated that the Highway Authority had concluded the proposals would not cause unacceptable impact, therefore it had responded.

·         Concerns regarding parking were an issue for this Planning Committee to take into consideration.

·         Although not against the principle of the development of the site, care must be taken to avoid over development.

·         There was no reference to EV charging points to individual properties.

·         The area on a personal site visit seemed incredibly tight for the proposed development.

·         Proposed car parking spaces were small.

·         Concerns of overdevelopment which was not conducive to the good mental health of residents.

 

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

 

·         The concerns raised were a matter for the Highway Authority, which was satisfied with the proposed plans.

·         Additional homes would be provided which were desperately needed.

·         There appeared to be no legitimate planning grounds to refuse the application for development.

·         It was good to see an empty building being brought back into use.

·         It was pleasing that new homes were to be built, although at the loss of a community facility.

·         The outdoor space to the new homes was modest in size, however, some people were not so bothered about an outside area.

·         The car parking area was non-permeable, probably due to previous pollution risks on the site.

 

The following questions were raised in respect of the planning application:

 

·         How many car parking spaces would be provided within the proposed development?

·         Where would waste/recycling bins be located?

·         Had the reference to new builds been discussed with the Central Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee (CLJSPC) in terms of energy efficiency?

·         In terms of net biodiversity gain, who would be responsible for maintenance of the new planted areas?

·         Why was there no condition regarding hours of construction work?

 

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

 

·         There were in total twelve car parking spaces proposed. He apologised for the error in the report.

·         There was a dedicated area for waste/recycling bins for the flats and the bin storage for the three individual properties would be located in their gardens.

·         The Highway Authority had set out its final comments in respect of the development proposal at page 82 of the officer’s report. No objections were raised to highway safety or the local highway network including vehicular access to the car parking spaces adjacent to Mons Road.

·         In terms of energy efficiency, the new homes would be fitted with Photovoltaic solar panels as a heating supplement and air source heat pumps, and be of timber framed construction for better thermal performance. Full energy assessments had been carried out which satisfied compliance with energy efficiency.

·         A condition requiring details of how the landscaped area was to be maintained, (which residents usually contributed to through a management company) would be considered reasonable if members of Planning Committee were so minded to impose such a condition.

·         A condition controlling hours of construction work was also considered to be reasonable.

·         Each new build would incorporate EV parking points together with the car parking spaces for the flats.

·         The size of the flats met the national minimum space standard.

·         The car parking spaces met the national minimum space standard recommended by the Highways Authority.

 

A motion was proposed, seconded, voted upon and carried that the following conditions be included if planning permission was granted:

 

·         A management agreement between residents and a management company be agreed to set out responsibility for landscape maintenance.

·         Standard hours of construction work.

 

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

 

·         Materials

·         Landscaping scheme to be implemented as drawing and BNG metric

·         Standard contamination conditions

·         Energy efficiency measures incorporated and verified

·         A management agreement between residents/management company be agreed to take responsibility for landscape maintenance.

·         Standard hours of construction work.