Agenda item

Members gave consideration to the last application of the night, application number 140545 for approval of reserved matters for the erection of 1no. dwelling and detached garage with annex accommodation, considering appearance, landscaping, layout and scale- following outline permission 139520 granted 16 January 2020. The Development Management Officer stated there had been one further objection received, summarised as follows:

·         They questioned the use of extensions of time on the outline application and this reserved matters application and said that the application should have been refused immediately

·         Issues in relation to highways and access still outstanding

·         Policies from the neighbourhood plan had been cherry picked by the planning officers

·         Size of the dwellings being approved on the site were too large

·         Plot 9 should be a single storey dwelling

·         Impact on the residential amenity of no. 32-oveshadowing and scale

·         Loss of the view to grade 1 listed church

 

The Chairman noted there were four speakers registered for the application, with the first being a statement to be read out by the Democratic and Civic Officer.

 

Statement from Scotton Parish Council

 

“1. The Parish Council has sent in an objection to this application and wish that you please note these objections.

 

2. The Parish Council would like to inform you that the Scotton Neighbourhood Plan has been approved and therefore should be considered regarding this application. This application contravenes Policy 5 and 6 of the Plan. The size is over 2 to 3 times what is required for any development within Scotton. This is also contrary to Local Policy LP26 as it will adversely affect the amenities of other properties.

 

3. The Parish Council has concerns that the original percolation test for the plot has not been made public or any other tests.

 

4. The present road leading to this application is only wide enough for one vehicle. The delivery of materials and vehicles of the workmen will cause this road to be blocked for other traffic unless the road improvements are in place before any building work is allowed.

 

The Chairman thanked the Democratic and Civic Officer and invited the next speaker, Jessica McCague, Agent for the applicant, to address the Committee.

 

The Agent explained there were three main points she wished to make in response to objections raised against the application. Firstly, with regard to the scale of the house, she noted that there had been an objection raised which stated the proposal in the current application was 50% larger than the indicative house size on the original application. The Agent stated that this was not true. The footprint of the house on both applications was at 238m² and therefore had not altered. The garage with one bedroom annex was larger than originally planned, however with a footprint increase from 81m² to 134m² this was an overall increase of only 16%. She stated that, in response to several requested amendments to the plan, they had complied with the requests accordingly, such as reducing the length of the garage alongside the boundary of number 32 from 25m to 13.5m; moving the garage an increased distance away from the boundary of number 32 and reducing the height of the garage in relation to the impact on plot 1. In response to concerns that the applicant would seek to convert the garage and annex into a separate dwelling at a later date, the Agent stated that this was not the wish of her client and the use of the garage was too important to his way of life to consider changing it. Finally, she confirmed that the proposal was not for commercial use. Her client was an independent joiner who wished to store his van, tools and materials in a safe and secure environment in order to best minimise the risk of theft and the impact that would have on his livelihood. She explained that her client already lived in the community and had made every effort to ensure their proposals worked for the community as well as their own needs. She thanked the Committee for their time and asked them to consider and support the Officer’s recommendation for approval.

 

The next speaker was then invited to speak. Mr Redfern, objector to the application, made the following comments.

 

“We object to this application and are at a complete loss to understand how this can possibly be justified and recommended for approval, even with the conditions when there are so many compelling reasons for rejection. The proposed development represents overbuild and extravagance in the extreme. Based on the measurements given by the Case Officer, the house is a huge 640m² with a proposed workshop of 180m², our house is 160m² and accommodates four adults and two children. The only house bigger than this is the 40 bed nursing home. The officer states ‘dwellings in the locality are of a mixed scale’, they are and range in size from 96m2 and 310m2, not even close to 640m2. It will be a carbuncle on the beautiful landscape and is therefore totally inappropriate in terms of size, scale, orientation, appearance and landscaping. It will certainly not relate well to the surrounding area and will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area as well as causing an unacceptable loss of amenity in terms of privacy, outlook and potentially noise to us.

 

The proposed outbuilding shows excavation to below ground level, contrary to planning conditions. There is a problem with the silver birch trees, the root protection area is 3.6m and should not be encroached on. It is 13.5m long, 3.5m longer than our house. It sits adjacent to the area mostly used in our garden, which causes great concern regarding the potential for noise levels from cars, dogs, workshop etc. We have a long, narrow garden, approximately 80m long. Plot 9 has a huge plot of 1620m² running 57m along our boundary which leaves just 23m to accommodate Plot 1, which is also adjacent to us. Every part of our boundary is being unnecessarily encroached upon and you would have thought, with a plot of this size, there would be some room for compromise. The house and outbuilding could be reoriented away from our boundary, as previously recommended by a Planning Officer. It is acknowledged that the Neighbourhood Plan (N.P.) carries significant weight. Policy 5 N.P. (g). Any proposed dwelling to the front of the site and immediately adjacent to the shared boundary with 32 Eastgate should have an appropriate scale and relationship with the property and protect the living conditions of the occupants. This proposal would not! It seems to us that the proposal for this building couldn’t be designed more perfectly to deny us the amenity of natural sunlight, privacy and overshadowing if it tried. It is as close to our border as the silver birch trees allow, running parallel to the recreational and food growing areas of our garden that we have cultivated for over 44 years. It is a haven of peace and tranquillity and it feels that this annex alone, which is larger than some houses on Eastgate, has been poorly sited and would take away a lot of our amenity. L.P.26. The amenities which all existing and future occupants of neighbouring land + building may reasonably expect to enjoy must not be unduly harmed by as a result of development. Consideration should be given in relationship to over looking, overshadowing and loss of light. All of this applies to us. The case officer acknowledges there will be loss of light + overshadowing but it is considered to be not of an unduly harmful level. In the future there will also be loss of light and overshadowing when Plot One is developed. This development will have a major impact on our life. In fact Plot 9 would benefit from everything that we would be deprived of including the beautiful views over open countryside. Are the needs of the applicant ot be given priority over any of our needs, including the residents of Scotton expressed in the Neighbourhood Plan.

 

N.P. Point 7.6.and 7.9 and policy 5 12.2 supports new development where they are sensitive and appropriate to their location. Small scale in relation to building form in the village and that new houses sit well within the wider landscape. The general development should include smaller dwellings of 2 to 3 bedrooms to support the local accommodation needs in the village. LP26 design principle C - relates well to the site and surroundings particularly in relation to siting height and scale; it does none of these. A planning application in Scotton to build a bungalow was refused as the officers report stated it was incongruous and having an adverse affect on both the immediate surroundings and the wider landscape. This proposal is all of these! Another application, in order to protect the rural character of the settlement and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with LP26 the dwelling approved was limited to single storey accommodation. Why cannot the annex next to us be single-storey to safeguard our amenities?...”

 

At the end of the five minute time limit, the Chairman thanked Mr Redfern for his time and asked Councillor Lesley Rollings to speak, in her role as Ward Member.

 

Councillor L. Rollings explained she had received many comments regarding this application. She expressed her concerns that there appeared to be no oversight of the whole site, allowing nine self-build properties being monitored by individual Planning Officers, rather than a plan for the site as a whole. She stated that, on the original application, Lincolnshire County Council Highways had stated that the roads would not be adopted, and there were no details in the papers as to who would be responsible for roads, lighting, pavements and suchlike. Councillor Rollings stated that she believed the Neighbourhood Plan was being ignored and the need for smaller dwellings was being overlooked. She stated the sections of the Neighbourhood Plan relevant to number 32 Eastgate and reiterated the sentiments of the previous speaker that they would lose their privacy in being overlooked along all boundaries of their garden. She also queried the future plans for the proposed dwelling, voicing concerns that it could be for commercial use in the future. With regards to size and scale of the property, Councillor Rollings repeated the size details of other properties in the area but stated there was nothing of the size of the proposed building. She questioned why there was a history of applications for smaller properties being refused, where this application for such a large property was being recommended for approval. She stated that she believed the size of the dwelling should be significantly reduced, the garage should become simply a garage, rather than the separate building and annex and the siting of the building on the plot should be reconsidered to minimise the impact on neighbouring properties. She thanked the Committee for their time.

 

At the end of the speakers, the Interim Planning Development Manager highlighted to the Committee that, in terms of decision making, where the local planning authority had issued a decision statement (as set out under Regulation 18 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012) detailing its intention to send a draft neighborhood plan to referendum, that plan could be given significant weight in decision-making, so far as the plan was material to the application.

 

The Chairman invited comments from Members of the Committee. It was reiterated that the application was for reserved matters only. There were concerns raised regarding the size of the annex and whether it could be conditioned that it must remain ancillary to the main dwelling, both for current and future occupants. It was confirmed this was an option.

 

There was significant discussion regarding the size of the property and the Development Management Officer clarified that the larger measurements encompassed the floor space over two floors as well as the garage space.

 

It was proposed that the permitted development rights be extended to cover the entire building rather than just the first floor of the annex.

 

With this amendment it was moved, seconded and agreed that reserved matters of scale, appearance, layout and landscaping, with conditions as detailed below, be APPROVED.

 

Conditions stating the time by which the development must be commenced:

 

Refer to outline planning permission ref 139520.

 

Conditions which apply or require matters to be agreed before the development commenced:

 

1. No development must take place until details (including the colour) of all external and roofing materials to be used have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the building and its surroundings and ensure the proposal uses materials and components that have a low environmental impact and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and local policy LP17 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2012-2036 and policy 5 of the draft Scotton Neighbourhood Plan.

 

2. No development must take place until a final landscaping scheme has been submitted including details of the height, materials and species of planting to be used for the boundary treatments have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure the development site is appropriately landscape in its setting to the National Planning Policy Framework and local policies LP17 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2012-2036 and policy 5 of the draft Scotton Neighbourhood Plan.

 

3. No development must take place until, details of the form and position of the protection measures to protect the trees adjacent to the west boundary have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved protection measures must be installed prior to commencement and retained in place until the development is completed.

 

Reason: To safeguard the existing trees on the site during construction works, in the interest of visual amenity to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and local policy LP21 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2012-2036.

 

Conditions which apply or are to be observed during the course of the development:

 

4. With the exception of the detailed matters referred to by the conditions of this consent, the development hereby approved must be carried out in accordance with the following proposed drawings:

·         ALLISON-A-04B received 28th April 2020;

·         ALLISON-A-02B received 16th April 2020;

·         ALLISON-A-05D received 16th April 2020;

·         ALLISON-A-03D received 16th April 2020.

The works must be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and in any other approved documents forming part of the application.

 

Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the approved plans and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework, local policy LP17 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2012-2036 and policy 5 and 12 of the draft Scotton Neighbourhood Plan.

 

5. No occupation of the dwelling must occur until the proposed driveway and turning space identified on site plan ALLISON-A-03D received 16 April 2020 has been constructed. All hardstanding identified on site plan ALLISON-A-03D received 16 April 2020 must be constructed from a permeable material and retained thereafter.

 

Reason: To ensure off street parking provision is provide prior to occupation and to reduce the risk of surface water flooding on the site and the highway to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework, local policy LP14 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2012-2036 and policy 5 of the Scotton Neighbourhood Plan

 

6. Notwithstanding drawing no. ALLISON-A-03D received 16 April 2020, no works on the construction of the outbuilding shall commence until a plan showing the final position of the outbuilding has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once agreed, the works must be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plan.

 

Reason: In the interests of protecting the adjacent trees on the west boundary with no.32 Eastgate, in accordance with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

Conditions which apply or relate to matters which are to be observed following completion of the development:

 

7. The first floor annex accommodation in the detached garage building shall not be occupied at any other time other than for the purposes ancillary to the residential use of the main dwelling on ‘Plot 9, Eastgate’.

 

Reason: The application has been assessed and found to be acceptable as an annex ancillary to the use of the main dwelling on ‘Plot 9’ in accordance with the NPPF and policies LP17 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and Policy 5 of the Scotton Neighbourhood Plan.