Agenda item

The Chairman introduced the final application for the evening, application number 142148 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 at Rosemary Villa, 30 Wragby Road, Sudbrooke, Lincoln – resubmission of planning application 140180. The Senior Development Management Officer provided the following update.

 

Since the report was written additional objections had been received from residents of 28, 61 and 96 Wragby Road, Sudbrooke; 50 Windsor Close, Sudbrooke; 10, 21 and 35 Sibthorpe Drive, Sudbrooke; 3 and 5 Courtfield Close, Sudbrooke; 2 and 23 Holme Drive, Sudbrooke, 13 Park Close, Sudbrooke; 3 Fir Tree Close, Sudbrooke; and 6 Oak Tree Close, Sudbrooke which were summarised as follows:

 

• Contrary to several policies in the CLLP and neighbourhood plan
• Harmful to residential amenity by virtue of noise and disturbance, overshadowing, reduced light, increased fumes and light pollution contrary to LP17, LP26 and Policy 9
• Not sustainable development, not best use of existing stock, use of natural resources, is energy inefficient, does not minimise waste or pollution or travel contrary to LP1, LP13 and LP18
• Scale, height, materials and mass are out of keeping with the area and adjacent dwellings
• No need for a HMO and no local support contrary to LP2 and LP4. The proposal is not designed to be a home.
• With 8 double bedrooms up to 16 people could live in the proposal instead of 8 people as considered in the noise assessment and by the planning inspectorate. Rooms could be occupied by more people
• The submitted streetscene drawing is inaccurate because 26 Wragby Road is smaller than drawn and the proposal would be taller than 28 Wragby Road. The application plot is higher than 28 Wragby Road which will emphasise the difference in scale. This erroneous document seems to have been used in the appeal
• Light from car movements, interior lighting and exterior lighting
• 28 Wragby Road is built below the road level meaning any movement to and from the property will increase light pollution from overlooking. The front wall would not prevent this
• There has never been vehicular access to the rear of this cluster of properties and the information submitted regarding 24 Wragby Road is inaccurate. The applicants assertion that parking at 24 Wragby Road causes problems is contradicted by his assertion the proposed parking arrangements are acceptable
• Is a garage proposed?
• It is unclear what type of fence/wall will be built and what the noise assessment recommends
• The site may be levelled off meaning fence heights are increased and this is not shown on the plans
• The proposal does not meet the CLLP objective of promoting healthy lifestyles and wellbeing and provides insufficient amenity
• No push bike facilities. Cars would have to be used
• Plans show inaccurate 45 degree line. It would affect neighbouring windows. Are the plans accurate?
• The property is currently being renovated. The garage has already been demolished.
• The example properties given by the applicant are not comparable to the proposal
• The proposal does not supply housing for local people
• Noise assessment is misleading as it does not account for multi path and reverberation and the use of garden/patio is dismissed. 30 Wragby Road is a noisier location than 28 Wragby Road. If the noise assessment had been done in the garden of 28 Wragby Road with a hedge/fence the ambient noise level would be lower and therefore the impact would be greater. The noise assessment is not independent.
• Group bookings are possible with associated disturbance
• Lincoln City Council’s supplementary planning for HMO’s details why it used an Article 4 direction and related concerns which are applicable here. 23 Wragby Road could be a HMO
• Lack of amenities in the area
• The road is extremely busy
• Lack of parking for the proposal
• Loss of property value
• If this is passed after umpteen attempts I can only assume that the council have had a backhander from the developer
• Construction impacts and harm to wildlife
• No need for further building in Sudbrooke
• The proposal is not for a replacement HMO. It is for an additional HMO.

 

These representations did not change the recommendation.

 

The Chairman thanked him for his update and stated there were four registered speakers to the application. He invited the first speaker, Councillor Peter Heath of the Parish Council, to address the Committee. He made the following statement.

 

This is the third time that this development has been presented to the committee. The design on each occasion is virtually unchanged from the previous one. It was rejected on both previous occasions and an appeal was also rejected thus confirming the committee’s decision.

 

Sudbrooke Parish Council object to this application for the “Material Harm” it will cause the occupants of 28 Wragby Road by the overbearing nature of the proposed building and usage as stated in the appeal judgment.

 

I hope the members of the planning committee have had the opportunity to read the objection from Mr Clark, the neighbour at 28 Wragby Road.  Mr Clark, has provided a comprehensive rebuttal of the many of the claims made for the application. The applicant misrepresents the current state of the building in the attached photographs, it is shown as a derelict building. The building has since been refurbished with new windows and interior work as shown in the photographs provided by Mr Clark in his objection.

 

The design drawings show 45 degree line from the rear as having no impact on the neighbouring house. The Line is not in the correct place and will affect the light received by the windows of No 28.

 

The development is in direct conflict with Policy 2 of the Sudbrooke Neighbourhood Plan, Extensions and alterations to existing dwellings, and Policy 9, Local Design Principles, of the Sudbrooke Neighbourhood Plan.

 

Policy 2 states that:-

 

Extensions and alterations to existing dwellings within the Parish where planning permission is required will be supported where the following criteria are met:

1. the size scale, height and materials of the development are in keeping with the original dwelling
2.  the extension and alterations are designed so that there shall be no significant reduction in the private amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties through overlooking, overshadowing, loss of light or an overbearing appearance.

 

Policy 9  section 2 states that: -

 

In relation to site design, layout and access it should meet the following criteria:

 

b) Protects the amenity of neighbouring occupiers

 

This application fails on both our Policies.

 

The applicant has made many assumptions in his favour in the design and access statement.

The provision of an 8-bedroom mansion for short term lets will generate noise and disturbance from unregulated arrivals, departures and outdoor enjoyment of the space for potentially up to 16 plus people. The noise created by manoeuvring vehicles to access parking space at the front and rear should not be lightly dismissed. The noise assessment provided by the applicant is partisan and make assumptions in the applicant’s favour. Recordings of passing traffic and of the rear garden of an unoccupied house are hardly representative of the potential noise when fully occupied.

 

Sudbrooke Parish Council are concerned for the safety of occupants arriving and departing by car onto the A158 a main arterial road for access to the coast. The junction of the A158 with Scothern Lane a few hundred yards to the west has been the site of many car accidents as drivers risk pulling out into fast flowing traffic.

 

The applicant cites other HMO’s in Sudbrooke as justification for this.  There are 2 small Air B&Bs in Sudbrooke and an HMO in a former 4 bed house. It is run by social services for up to six in long term accommodation for vulnerable adults under supervision.   This application is much bigger than all of those combined.

 

In conclusion this change from a modest family home to a hotel like property will have a huge impact on the neighbouring property It will increase traffic and therefore pollution and risk. It is not sustainable development and is not required or sought after for our village and should be rejected.

 

The Chairman invited the second speaker, the applicant Mr Vaddaram, to make his comments. He offered the following statement.

 

My name is Sath Vaddaram.

The refusal of previous application 140180 has been appealed to the Planning Inspectorate who has confirmed that the reasons for the refusal by Planning Committee were not justified. However, the appeal inspector had dismissed the appeal based on totally new ground which is noise and disturbance as a mentioned in point 23 of decision notice.

 

This application is a resubmission as per the suggestion by the Honourable Judge at High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division during the Renewal Hearing of Planning Statutory Review as the noise assessment report was not present at the time the Inspector was deciding.

 

Regarding objector’s comments:

1. About Noise: The Noise Assessment proves that the impact is acceptable and in accordance with the planning policy. Furthermore, this has also been endorsed by the Environmental Protection Officer from the same council who has concluded their own assessment.
2. Disturbances:
   1. Sight/ Vision: Lights from the vehicles are acceptable and demonstrated through the drawings on the screen (WRA030-HL1-01) and The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989
   2. Smell: All the vehicles are subject to annual MOT and emission test. So, smoke comes out the vehicles are acceptable levels. 
   3. Other disturbances like taste, touch, movement, body position are not applicable to this proposal.

 

3. Anti-social behaviour: As confirmed by the Environmental Protection Officer, this can be dealt with under suitable existing legislation.
4. Highway safety impairment: It was considered and accepted by the Planning Inspector under the point 7. Furthermore, Local Highway Authority have confirmed that the proposal does not have an impact on the public highway in terms of safety and capacity.
5. Parking and vehicle movements: Planning Inspectorate acknowledged this under the point 16 and has not raised any objections. Furthermore, 11 immediate neighbouring properties are currently parking at the rear. Business use at 24 Wragby Road is already causing enormous vehicle movements.

 

6. Suitability of the site: Planning Inspectorate has dealt this under the point 9 and 13.
7. The design and appearance: This have been covered by Planning Inspector under points between 10 to 13.
8. Overbearing nature: Planning Inspectorate covered this under the point 12.
9. Trees and wildlife: These have no relevance to this development.
10. Loss of light and overshadowing: Planning Inspectorate determined this under the point 15.
11. Light pollution: Officer’s Report already addressed this point.
12. Neighbourhood plan: was fully considered by the Planning Inspector as mentioned under the point 2.
13. Need of development: Planning Inspector confirmed under the point 23 this development would provide good quality visitor and business accommodation and diversify the type and choice of accommodation.
14. All the Policies mentioned by the objectors are already covered by the Appeal Decision and the Officer’s Report.

 

Any other non-relevant comments should be disregarded and please note that there are some insulting comments towards the applicant and the council officer's integrity.

 

As Officer’s Report clearly demonstrated this revised application mitigates the only one reason for previous dismissal by the Planning Inspectorate. So, the applicant requests the committee to grant the approval to avoid presenting this planning case in front of the same Judge/ Court.

 

Thank you, Chairman.

 

The third speaker, Mr Andy Clark who was speaking on behalf of his father-in-law, made the following statement.

 

My name is Andy Clark, I am the son in law of Alan Dovey who I am speaking on behalf of this evening; he lives at 28 Wragby Road, next door to the proposed planning application.

 

The current proposal will significantly affect his amenity as was supported by the Planning Inspectorate. The proposal will cause disturbance, noise and light pollution, the resubmission of this proposal does not resolve this. All the decisions made on this property assumed that the property was unrepairable. It states in the planning and design document that the current property is structurally unsound.  Contrary to this the property has already undergone significant redevelopment, the garage has been demolished, 7 new windows fitted, decorating, plumbing and grounds cleared. The proposal does not meet sustainable requirements as it does not make best use of existing stock, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste or pollution, mitigate climate change or minimise the need to travel. This is a great example of building for buildings sake.

 

A noise survey has been undertaken and while we do not dispute the calculations per say, we completely disagree with a lot of the assumptions made and therefore a significant amount of impact has not been modelled or considered. The report has been used to try and nullify the previous appeal outcome; therefore, it is critical that the assumptions are correct. I believe the noise survey is significantly bias toward Mr Vaddaram.

 

The survey is modelled on 8 residents only, with an assumption of individual lets, yet as these are double or perhaps even family rooms there could be 20 guests. This potential occupancy and therefore impact has not been measured. Even the inspectorate’s decision made this assumption of 8 residents and still deemed it enough to dismiss the appeal.

 

The assumption that the garden and patio will not be used and therefore not modelled is preposterous. With no local facilities such as pubs or restaurants the garden will undoubtedly be utilised, particularly in Summer. To dismiss interactions between clientele and only factor in 1-minute conversations is flawed, as this does not account for interactions between family groups, couples, or visitors.

 

Additional noise and disturbance such as cars idling, service vehicles, motorbikes, arrivals and departures especially with luggage as well as potential group bookings have not been considered.

 

The measurements for the noise survey were taken in the garden of number 30, however, this is not a true representation of the background noise levels I experience in my garden as I am significantly more acoustically sheltered and have less exposure to the road noise. Therefore, the impact is greater than measured.

 

The assessment is based on spherical spreading and does not account for multi path or reverberation, however as most of the proposed land will be covered in tarmac (or similar) and is boxed in with mainly walls and fences, the sound will be reflected rather than be absorbed (as it is currently). Thus, having a greater impact than modelled. The noise survey report also states there is a garage in the rear of number 24 and uses this in favour of the proposal. For clarity, there is not and never has been a garage in the rear garden of number 24. I do not believe the noise survey materially changes the original application which was refused by this committee and refused on appeal.

 

There will be a large increase in light pollution from car movements at the front and rear as well as the additional exterior lighting required for the business to meet Health and Safety requirements. The 1m wall at the front, the slope down to the houses and driver behaviours have not been considered in the visual impact statement.

 

The “Proposed Street Elevation Document” has been used to validate the massing, scale, and appearance of the proposal. However, the proposed ridge height is higher than mine and therefore massing, scale and appearance has been underestimated.

The activity and the comings and goings of 8 people as well as the services to support this will be significantly greater than a single-family household. The possibility of 20 people magnifies this exponentially and has not been considered.

 

I fear I will be unable to use my own garden if this proposal goes ahead. Not only is there no local support for this development, but there is considerable objection to it. I respectfully request that you refuse this planning application.

 

The fourth speaker, Councillor R. Waller, speaking as Ward Member, addressed the Committee. He stated that he was surprised to see the application a further time, given that it was virtually identical to the previous application refused by Committee and lost on appeal.  He stated that he could not see any material changes. The previous application was refused as contrary to sections of the Local Plan, NPPF and Neighbourhood Plan, he felt all of these remained valid for the current application. He noted that the noise assessment had been based on an assumed eight residents of the property, however it was possible for there to be significantly more people in residence which would greatly impact the noise levels. He also commented that there were no waste storage facilities, with the applicant proposing to collect the waste on a daily basis. It was highlighted that a licensed carrier would be required to clear business waste and the Environment Protection Officer had raised concerns about this proposed arrangement. With such strong objections from the Parish Council and local residents, Councillor Waller hoped that Members would take all objections into consideration, however, should the application be approved, he felt it was necessary for conditions be imposed to address concerns regarding noise and waste disposal, amongst other concerns.

 

NOTE:           Councillor Waller left the meeting at 8:29pm

 

The Senior Development Management Officer commented that, should the application be approved, licensing regulations could be used to control the occupancy levels in the property. He also highlighted the proposed conditions which addressed the concerns raised, specifically regarding waste disposal, parking allocation and noise levels. He added that the Environmental Health Officer had also undertaken noise assessments and their findings did not raise any concerns.

 

The Chairman invited comments from Members. Based on the similarities with the previously refused application, the Legal Advisor reiterated that the reason for refusal by the Inspector, following the applicant’s appeal, was based on noise considerations which was now addressed by the provision of a noise assessment.

 

There was strong feeling amongst Members that the concerns regarding noise levels were not the only issue and worries about vehicle movements, light pollution as well as waste removal remained valid. It was also noted that, by the very nature of an HMO, it could prove difficult to monitor the situation should there be continuous change of residents.

 

With no proposer for the Officer recommendation, it was moved that the application be refused as contrary to LP26 paragraphs M,Q,R and S, NPPF 127a and Neighbourhood Plan Policy 9 part 2. The proposal was seconded and the Chairman took the vote. It was subsequently agreed that permission be REFUSED as detailed above.