Agenda item

The Committee were asked to give consideration to application number 141726, for removal of prefabricated double garage and construction of double garage with additional habitable space/games room above at 12 Ulster Road Gainsborough. This was a resubmission of previously approved permission 140242. There were no updates from the Officer and she presented the details of the application to the Committee.

Note:              Due to a recurrence of the technical issues, the meeting adjourned at 8:32pm and reconvened at 9:00pm. The Chairman conducted a full roll call to ensure all Members were present. This was confirmed to be the case.     

The Planning Officer continued her presentation and, once completed, the Chairman invited the registered speaker to address the Committee.

Mr Peter Benson, Agent for the Applicant, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak. He stated that, as mentioned, the proposal originally was granted permission in February 2020 however, the proposed redesign was to try to get more space on the first floor. To do this, they were suggesting a slightly increased pitch of roof. This increased the first floor space without increasing the footprint. They considered this to be a minor change. The original application approved had an overall ridge height of 5.7m with a corresponding eave height of 2.85m. The distance from the front boundary was 15m which was exactly the same distance as the existing garage. The new amended application had an identical footprint but with a revised height of 6.4m. He stated that due to previous discussions, they were aware the increase would be met with some resistance but they had taken steps to ensure the impact was minimised. They also undertook lengthy consultation with neighbours to ensure there were no neighbourhood issues. In order to mitigate the increase in height they had moved the building 1.5m further back into the plot so it was further away from the road. This reduced the garden space but the applicants felt this was a suitable compromise in order to gain the additional space on the first floor. They felt the impact on neighbouring properties was minimal, due to the garden areas being raised and the garage being built at a lower level. With regard to the formal and informal consultation with neighbours, Mr Benson stated it was important to note that no negative feedback had been received from residents on the street. Formal letters of support had been received from residents of Ulster Road, including two neighbours, and informal positive feedback had also been received from other residents of Ulster Road. There was also no negative feedback received from the Parish Council, Lincolnshire County Council or the Ward Member. He stated that taking into account all of the above, the recommendation to refuse could be reconsidered by the Committee. He added that the materials to be used were in keeping with the area and the design of the proposal was not changed to the previously agreed application aside from the change to the roof pitch. He summarised the points made above and requested that consideration be given for approval of the application.

There were no further comments from the Planning Officer and so the Chairman asked for comments from Committee Members. A Member of the Committee noted that the application had been referred to the Committee because the applicant was associated with West Lindsey District Council otherwise the decision would have been taken under delegated powers. He stated that he could understand why the recommendation was to refuse permission however stated that, should the Committee be minded to grant the application, there should be a condition put in place to ensure the property remained ancillary to the main dwelling rather than separated off as a small dwelling.

Councillor M. Boles declared a personal interest in that he knew Mr Benson but had not discussed the application with him. Councillor Boles stated that he was struggling to agree with the Officer recommendation to refuse the application. In knowing the area well, he did not agree that the proposal would be overly dominant and noted the support from the neighbours and residents of the street. He stated that he would support the granting of permission.

Another Member of Committee stated that she recognised the concerns raised but was overall surprised at the recommendation to refuse. She noted there seemed to be sufficient space to accommodate the proposal without a negative impact on the area.

With no other indications to speak, the Chairman moved the Officer recommendation, which, on being seconded was taken to the vote. With a majority vote against, the recommendation to refuse planning permission was not carried and the Chairman asked for an alternative proposal.

A Member of Committee proposed that permission be granted under a reversal of the reasons for refusal. It was also proposed that an additional condition be put in place to ensure the building remained ancillary to the main dwelling. This proposal was seconded and, on being taken to the vote, it was agreed that permission be GRANTED.