Agenda item

Minutes:

The next application for consideration was number 141550 for the removal of existing dwelling and erection of 1no. dwelling house with associated access alterations, vehicle parking and landscaping at Rosemary Villa, 30 Wragby Road, Sudbrooke. Members heard from the Officer that since the report was drafted, further objections had been received from residents of Green Garth, 24 Wragby Road; and Homelea 28 Wragby Road summarised as follows:

• Not against a replacement dwelling but do not agree with multi occupancy.

• Potentially another 10 cars and people do not fit with current infrastructure of Sudbrooke and the busy road

• Impact on residential amenity- the size and proximity of the proposal to the neighbouring property will overshadow, reduce light and impact views from the rear of the property. The rear projection of the proposal would break the 45 degree rule in relation to number 28.

• Increased pollution and noise for the garden of 28, including noise from smokers outside the proposal

• Size of replacement dwelling is out of context and does not compliment neighbouring dwellings

• Loop hole means the house could be changed to a HMO. Objector requests an Article 4 direction is applied to this application to prevent this happening.

• The second floor plan is primed for conversion to additional en-suite bedrooms suggesting this is the intention.

• The noise survey is for an HMO indicating this is the objective

• Previous conclusions of the planning inspectorate on the last application still apply. The application must be refused for the same reasons.

 

These representations did not change the recommendation.

 

The Chairman invited the registered speakers to address the Committee. Councillor Peter Heath, of Sudbrooke Parish Council, made the following statement.

 

Sudbrooke Parish Council took this application at face value and recorded no objection. However, we have revised our opinion in the light of residents’ concerns and now wish to object for the following reasons.

 

Planning application 141550 is a straightforward resubmission of application 140180, refused by this Planning Committee in January.  Comparing the plans for this application to the last scheme, the design of the building and internal layout is identical. Only minor amendments have been made to re-label room descriptions. 

 

For example, the second-floor roof plan for this application retains the exact same layout, simply re-labelled. It has not been redesigned from the original scheme or its dominance on the area reduced in any way. Bedrooms in the original layout now appear as a ‘study, fitness room, playroom, games room and cinema room’ instead.  However, each of these rooms retains an individual bathroom.

 

The result of this is that we now have a proposal for a five bedroom “house” with nine bathrooms across 3 floors.  Three of these bathrooms are in the roof space alone!  This is clearly not a usual family home. Family homes in villages should also seek to maximise outdoor space. This proposal would turn over half of the existing rear garden into a large driveway and double garage, leaving only a small lawn area – quite out of character with a large family home and the local character. 

 

Consequently, the layout is dominated by vehicle movements and not amenity space. Most significantly the development will introduce vehicle movements to the rear of the property. Vehicle noise and disturbance from car lights in winter months or at night will negatively impact future residents of the proposed dwelling and harm the amenity and enjoyment of the existing neighbouring properties too.

 

Many other examples show the true intentions of the applicant. The noise impact assessment, dated August 2020, refers to the erection of a ‘house in multiple occupancy’ and ‘HMO’ throughout, and noise impact is assessed on this basis. Taken together, there is almost no attempt to disguise the very clear motives of the applicant. 

 

The council can confidently refuse this application; the last committee decision was subsequently upheld at appeal, with the Planning Inspector agreeing that the development is wholly unsuited to the site and in conflict with the development plan.  The appeal for costs, also dismissed by the Inspectorate, further underpins the robust case and justified decision this committee reached. 

The applicant operates a lettings company called ‘Properties on the Market’ in Lincoln that includes many HMOs.  The agent for this application, ‘’Buildrow” has the same address as the letting company at 65 High Street Lincoln.  They appear one and the same.

 

The purpose of this application is to plainly to develop an HMO by whatever means necessary and avoid planning controls. The fact remains however than in retaining the original design and layout, the scheme is no more suitable for this location than the previous failed attempt. The negative and harmful impact on neighbours is just as severe. Residents should feel protected from harmful development.

 

Visiting the site,it is clear that the proposal is totally out of character with the neighbouring dwellings and indeed all dwellings on the southern side of Wragby Road. The site occupies a prominent end plot which further exposes its dominance and negative impact on the street scene and rural backdrop.

 

Conclusion - If this application is a genuine attempt to deliver a family home, why build a house that is like no other in the locality in terms of scale and design. Why not make the rear garden a safe environment to relax and play too?  The answer is clear – this is not a family home.   

 

This development has already been firmly refused on grounds of harm to neighbour amenity. Policy conflicts with LP26 and NP policy 9 identified by the Inspector last time remain valid.  A condition restricting occupancy was, the Inspector concluded, not reasonable.  This means that planning controls that the council could impose in some cases cannot reasonably address the harm to neighbour amenity here.

 

On the grounds of design, misleading supporting evidence, harmful impact on neighbour amenity and conflict with the design code of the neighbourhood plan, this application should be refused.”

 

The second speaker, Mr Sath Vaddaram, Applicant, made the following comments alongside a selection of photographs he had provided in advance.

 

“My name is Sath Vaddaram. Regarding objector’s comments:

1. There is no relevance to HMO here as it is for C3 dwelling.

2. 11 immediate neighboring properties are currently parking at rear.

3. Business use at 24 Wragby Road is causing enormous vehicle movements..

It is surprising to learn that 26 has no concerns of above activities but has more interest on my property which is located far and other side of the cluster.

 

I challenge 2 Conditions proposed:

Condition 7

1. HMO is not relevant here. Every C3 proposal is conducive to future use as HMO. It is unreasonable to differentiate this proposal with that single point. Past planning history should complement for my honesty rather than be against.

 

2. The facts of Inspector’s statement have changed within the Officer’s report. The appeal has only dealt with 8 bed HMO and is clear from points 4, 17, 19 of the decision notice. Appeal has no relevance to any other proposals less than 8 beds. Officer cannot use someone else’s unconfirmed statement.

 

3. There are 13 HMO’s in that area. Full details were provided to the council, most of them are using their PD rights.

 

4. The noise report conflicts with this condition.

 

5. Regarding other potential disturbance such as

A.        Vision: Vehicle lights are acceptable as per the drawings on the screen (WRA030-HL-01) and part 4 of  Lighting Regulations 1989

 

B.        Smell: All the vehicles are subject to emission test.

 

6. Proposal is not in 'designated areas' where PD rights are more restricted.

 

7. Drawings on the screen (WRA030-PD1-01) shows the scope of PD rights on all properties in the cluster. They would be considerably larger and can be used as HMOs. Then, my property faces more concerns by debarring PD rights those can be used to confront when other properties exercise their rights.

 

8. Updated PD rights 2020 reconfirms in favour of C3 to C4. This condition is against the government policies.

 

9. I am not against implementation of Article 4 to tackle all the concerns raised applicable to every property in that area. Current approach constitutes discrimination against the applicant.

 

10. Appeal Case studies (APP/Q1445/W/18/3206340 87-89) confirm that this condition is unreasonable and will not justify the need as per Paragraph 55 of the NPPF

 

As an example the appeal decision states that

‘The fact that other neighbouring properties might still enjoy PD rights, I see no reason why the occupiers should be debarred from the entitlement available under Class C.’

 

Condition 5.

A.        Construction methods will reduce the noise impact levels from inside the building.

B.        Outside usage unchanged.

 

Overall, the proposal should have less noise impact on neighbouring property. So, the EPO’s classification should be ‘’No Observed Effect Level’’.

 

Even though the Applicant is not against his proposal, but stipulating this as a condition constitutes as discrimination because there is no acoustic fencing present between any C3 dwellings or in any other C3 planning conditions from this council.

 

In conclusion, the Planning permission should be granted without these two conditions.

 

Thank you.”

 

The third speaker for the evening, Ward Member Councillor Robert Waller had sent his apologies and so the following statement was read aloud by the Democratic Services Officer.

 

“Good Evening Members of the Committee

 

I would like to speak regarding the application 141550 a C3 dwelling on the site of an existing building at 30 Wragby Road Sudbrooke. I am the WLDC Councillor for the Sudbrooke Ward. I asked for this application to be bought to the full committee due in part to the controversial previous application for this site and also to ensure all residents have the opportunity to see that due process has been followed. In addition part of the application mentions HMO which has aroused suspicion amongst members of the public.

 

This application is very similar to the previous  one for this site that was refused by this committee and by the inspector when the applicant lodged an appeal. The appeal (APP/N2535/W/20/3245962) was refused on the 15th July this year. The main reasons for the appeal being refused are still, in my opinion extant in relationship to this new application. One of the main factors was the detrimental impact that a building of this size would have on the immediate neighbours with the proposed building being only 0.75m from the common boundary. The Inspector cited the following as some of her reasons in the decision;

 

• The impact on the living conditions of the neighbours at number 28 Wragby Road

• Conflict with policy LP 26

• NP Policy 9

• Giving full weight to Sudbrooke NP made on the 13th February 2020

 

We have before us an application that is very, very similar in design and layout, although the bedroom size has been reduced from 8 to 5, however three full en-suite rooms have been designated as a study, fitness room and child's playroom have replaced the other bedrooms. These rooms appear to have the same dimensions to the bedrooms they have replaced.  So the applicant appears to be developing a residence that can be changed to an HMO at a later date despite losing an appeal for a previous HMO. This has obviously caused concern amongst some residents and neighbours within the village. I do appreciate that one of the applicant’s companies specialise in the provision of HMOs in and around Lincoln. However, the application before the committee tonight is for a C3 dwelling and as such  members are voting on this but I ask you to bear in mind the previous application and the objections that were identified and supported when the appeal was refused. I would also like to highlight to the members of the committee that this is no ordinary dwelling. I have never heard of a five bedroom house with 9 bathrooms, 3 of which are in the roof space. This cannot be classed as a normal family residence. In addition the house has not got a “family” garden but a very large area for several cars with an underpass for these vehicles.

 

In its current format I would not be able to support this application. It is my personal opinion that this application is an attempt to establish an HMO by the submission of a C3 dwelling.  I would be  happy to see a new building erected on this site with the current house being demolished but only if the design, size and build all meet the requirements of the Neighbour hood plan and policies of the CLLP.  Any new build on this plot must, in my opinion take into consideration the immediate neighbours quality of living.”

 

The Chairman asked whether there was any further Officer update and the Interim Planning Manager reiterated to Members that the application was for a C3 family home and that was how it should be assessed. He noted that under current legislation, a C3 home could be converted into an HMO without any involvement of the Council, however, the report did include a condition whereby a conversion to an HMO would be required to return to the Committee. He also highlighted that planning history and inspectorate decisions were material considerations.

 

There was considerable discussion regarding the size and layout of the property in consideration of the previous refusal and the dismissed Planning Inspectorate appeal. Both the Planning Officers and the Legal Advisor reiterated to Members that the application was for a C3 family dwelling and any conversion to an HMO would be conditioned to return for further permission.

 

A Member of Committee moved an alternative proposal for the permission to be refused as contrary to LP26 section R and NP policy 9. This was seconded by the Chairman. On being put to the vote, it was carried that the application be REFUSED as contrary to LP26 section R and NP policy 9.

Supporting documents: