Agenda item

The Chairman introduced the first application of the evening, application number 140180 for demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a large house of multiple occupation (sui generis use class) with associated access alterations, vehicle parking and landscaping. He explained there were speakers registered to speak and asked the Senior Development Management Officer to provide any update to the report.

 

The Senior Development Management Officer explained that Reepham Parish Council had made comments and objections that the traffic and general disturbance associated with a HMO of this scale was totally inappropriate for this location. They felt it would seriously damage the amenity value of the adjacent properties that are family homes. The Committee heard that 40 additional letters of support had been received from various addresses in India and 6 Shepherds Way, Sudbrooke; 17 St Lawrence Drive, Bardney; 72 Greetwell Close, Lincoln; 62 Worthington Road, Balderton; 32 Brooklans, Milton Keynes; and Deadmans Lane, Greenham. He summarised these as follows:

 

•              would help boost economic development

•              support the proposal

•              would provide good accommodation

•              “I stayed there it is a good place”

•              would provide a suitable place to stay for visitors including those to Lincoln.

 

He noted that an additional objection had been received from The Blacksmiths Yard, 21 Station Street, Timberland summarised as follows:

 

•              Concerned about the sudden interest in proposal and disputed the validity of the comments because of lack of local connection. Hope the application is refused.

 

In addition, general observations had been received from 25 Wragby Road, Sudbrooke summarised as follows:

 

•              a replacement dwelling at 23 Wragby Road may be used as guest accommodation.

•              harmful impact on residential amenity of occupants of 28 Wragby Road

•              querying removal of hedge and garage before permission is granted.

•              concerns about burning waste on site and in the area.

 

The Senior Development Management Officer stated that these representations did not change the officer recommendation.

 

The Chairman asked the Vice Chairman to step down from the Committee and seat himself in the Visiting Members section. The Chairman took control of the stopwatch in order to ensure all speakers had their allowed five minutes and he invited the first speaker to address the Committee.

 

The first speaker introduced himself as Councillor Peter Heath, Chairman of Sudbrooke Parish Council. He explained that the Parish Council had reviewed the application and wished to object under LP1, it did not provide sustainable development; LP2, it far exceeded the housing stock; LP3, development targets had been exceeded; LP7, it was not high quality visitor accommodation. He stated that the Parish Council felt there was a complete uncertainty as to the use and purpose of the building. It was stated that it would be an Air BnB or overflow for consultants working at Lincoln Hospital. Councillor Heath stated that the proposal was contrary to LP10, meeting accommodation needs and contrary to LP17 as it was not in keeping with the village aesthetic. The Parish Council felt that the application was in conflict with LP26 for design and amenity, that the access was on a main arterial road, a known accident blackspot and there were significant safety concerns for vehicle users of the property. Councillor Heath added that hedges had been removed, despite assurances that they would remain in place, and the Parish Council was adamant that the proposal did not provide for existing or future residents of the village. The Committee also heard from Councillor Heath that the Parish Council felt the application was contrary to the Sudbrooke Neighbourhood Plan. He stated that the proposed building would not be in keeping with the village scene, where the existing property was. They felt that the application did not meet the aspiration of the village, that there would be excessive traffic generated by the proposal and that the nature of the application should constitute a change of use application from residential to business use. Councillor Heath also informed the Committee that there were concerns about existing behaviours on site, such as burning of waste, and requested that the application be rejected.

 

The Chairman invited the second speaker, the applicant, to address Committee Members.

 

Mr Vaddaram introduced himself and explained that he had developed hundreds of high-quality properties. He stated that his proposal had 73 supporters including three Officers, against 21 objections. He outlined his response to those objections as follows:

 

·         Policies referred by the objectors were not valid as the scheme was supported by the case officer who was knowledgeable and experienced. He felt the objectors were insulting his professionalism.

·         Overbearing nature: Mr Vaddaram stated that as confirmed by the officer, the scheme was acceptable.

·         Highway safety impairment: he highlighted that the Officer had confirmed that this proposal would not have any implications.

·         Public right of way effects: he again highlighted that there was no objection from the officer concerned.

·         Inadequate Parking: Mr Vaddaram questioned whether there was anyone present who had ever used more than one vehicle whilst visiting a hotel as a family.

·         Staff parking: he stated that his staff only needed to go the premises once the guest vacated the room which automatically created empty parking spaces.

·         Noise, disturbance and arrival time: the applicant felt this was the same as any other residents who also accesses their house at any time.

·         The design and appearance: he stated that the front elevation of this proposal matched other properties in the cluster.

·         Potential party house, brothel and drugs den: Mr Vaddaram stated that these were unreasonable speculations and illegal to public under ‘Defamation Act’. Furthermore, he noted that these activities could also take place in any other dwellings.

·         Neighbour’s residential amenity: he explained that these points were covered by the case officer.

·         Rear projections and overshadowing: Mr Vaddaram noted that under the PD rights, he believed anyone could extend up to 8 meters at the rear of their properties and he felt it was unreasonable to object to a smaller development than they could build in their own garden.

·         Impact of car park: he highlighted that he had extensively altered the car park plans according to the officer’s recommendations to mitigate this.

·         No need for proposal: Mr Vaddaram stated that if the objectors believed this, they were contradicting with their own arguments.

·         Use as HMO: he explained, for clarity, that the proposal was not a typical HMO. As there was no relevant classification for this proposed use, the planners had chosen the closest classification. He stated that his clientele were professional short stay guests.

·         Title deed prevention: he noted there was nothing in his deeds to prevent this proposal.

·         Removal of planting and ecological impact: Mr Vaddaram highlighted to Members that there were no TPOs on site. He had also included all of the greenery recommended by the planning officer within his proposal.

·         Waste burnt on site and Issues with another applicant’s sites: he stated that the Environmental Officer from WLDC had confirmed there were no issues. He reiterated that every application should be assessed on their own merits and should not relate to the applicant’s other sites.

·         Comments on approved planning Consent of 23 Wragby Road: He felt these comments were derogatory and insulting to the planning approval process.

·         Commenting on supporters as nonsense and request to disregard: Mr Vaddaram felt this same rule should apply to objectors as well.

·         Comments on number of my family members: he questioned how objectors could know all his family members and felt that interference with his private and family life was against the law under ‘Human Rights Act’.

·         Mr Vaddaram stated that his respected community members had confirmed there was clear ‘racial discrimination’ after assessing all of the objectors’ comments. He felt that anyone reading such comments could easily ascertain that the objectors were obstructing development of the person from different ethnic origin.

 

Mr Vaddaram concluded by saying that his initial scheme with 14 rooms had undergone several major alterations, after working tirelessly with planning officers to make the scheme acceptable and to comply with all relevant policies. He highlighted that the proposal had received more than three times the supporters than objectors. He requested Members to vote in favour of the case officer’s recommendation. He requested to be provided with the valid and specific reason referencing planning policies, should it be refused. He also noted his intention to appeal and claim costs should the application not be successful. Mr Vaddaram thanked Committee Members for their time.

 

The Chairman explained to all present that there was a technical difficulty with the live webcasting of the meeting and the meeting would pause shortly for these issues to be resolved.

 

Note:              The meeting adjourned at 6.48pm and reconvened at 6.51pm.

 

The Chairman explained that unfortunately, the meeting was not available to watch live, however the recording of the meeting would be available to view on the council website the following day. He then invited the third and final speaker, Councillor Robert Waller, to make his comments.

 

Councillor Waller explained he was the Ward Member for the aplplication and he was in complete agreement with the Parish Council. He stated that he felt the application went against many policies of the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan. He also explained that while there were letters of support, he spoke on behalf of the people in his ward not those from other areas. Councillor Waller informed Members that, while the applicant referred to the proposal as a HMO, he felt it was more akin to a bed and breakfast business and as such should be classed as commercial activity. He stated that it was implied there was a need for such a premise as those available in Lincoln were damp and unclean which he felt was unnecessary and that there were several grey areas as to how the premise would actually be used. He requested that clarity be sought as to the nature of use of the property and referenced several supports using terminology such as ‘hotel’, which, he highlighted, was not what was described on the application. Councillor Waller stated that he did not believe that the area needed a hotel, nor a HMO and that it would be completely out of character for Sudbrooke. He raised concerns about the location in terms of being on an arterial road, which he did not feel could be classed as a residential street. He believed the application went against LP1 and LP2 in that it exceeded the housing stock. He also felt it was in direct conflict with LP17 and LP26 regarding design principles. In addition, Councillor Waller explained that he believed the application went against the Neighbourhood Plan as the design and appearance was out of keeping with the rest of the village. He thanked Committee Members for their time and requested that the application be rejected.

 

Note:              Councillor Robert Waller left the meeting at 6.56pm.

 

The Chairman invited comments from the Senior Development Management Officer who clarified that the use of the premises being applied for was as a HMO. The Chairman invited comments from Committee Members.

 

There was significant discussion as to the intended purpose of the property. There was a strong feeling that an application for business use would be more appropriate and that the description of a HMO did not accurately reflect the intentions of the applicant. A Member of Committee raised concerns that the applicant appeared to be providing accommodation for Lincoln rather than Sudbrooke and as such was contrary to LP1 regarding sustainable development.

 

Members of Committee sought clarification as to the intended use but felt that terminology used by the applicant contradicted the details of the application. It was agreed that each application had to be decided upon as it was presented to the Committee however some Members felt there was sufficient doubt as to whether there was an intended business use, as to require further information.

 

After further discussion, a Member of Committee stated that she did not agree with the statements of objection and moved the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

The Legal Advisor clarified that should the application be approved, the licence for being a HMO would also need to be applied for. She explained that it was different to the terms of, for example a holiday lease, where there were limits as to how long people could reside there. This was not the case for a HMO.

 

Committee Members engaged in further discussion as to the intended use of the property and whether there were other options available to the Committee. It was subsequently proposed that the application be deferred in order for further clarification to be sought from the applicant as to the intended use of the property. The request for information was to confirm whether this would be for a HMO or whether there was intended business use. This proposal was seconded.

 

A Member of Committee seconded the move that permission be granted and this was put to the vote. With two in favour and 10 against, Members did not vote to agree the application.

 

The Chairman then took the second motion to the vote, for the application to be deferred. With 11 in favour and two against it was agreed that application number 140180 be DEFERRED to be heard at a later meeting.

 

Note:              The meeting was adjourned at 7:13pm to allow members of the public to leave the room.