Agenda item

The Chairman introduced the final application of the evening, application number 143973 for 2no. dwellings with associated detached garages being variation of condition 5 of planning permission 140625 granted 14 April 2020 - Amended drawings, on land off Astley Crescent, Scotter, Gainsborough. The Officer explained that there had been a complaint received by Environmental Protection regarding building material having blown against a fence, it was explained this could be conditioned against if deemed necessary.

 

The Chairman explained there were two statements submitted to be read aloud by the Democratic Services Officer, the first being from Mrs Jenny Blythe, the applicant. The following statement was read aloud.

 

“We feel the need to redress some of the comments made so far:

 

Upon purchase, Plots 12A & 12B Astley Crescent were an impenetrable, overgrown wasteland, covered in 8-10ft briars, bramble bushes and residential waste.  Each year the seeds and spores from the overgrowth ended up in local residents’ gardens requiring removal.  The area was an unacceptable eyesore at the end of a well designed and well kept crescent.

 

Development of these plots will ensure its transition to two, well designed and positively impactful family residences with appropriate parking and garage facilities.

 

Both 2 1/2 storey properties will be lesser in height than the adjacent properties, (3 brick courses lower than No 40 Astley Cres, 5 courses lower than No 38 and 8 courses lower than No 36).  Thus within the boundaries set for the builds.

 

Regarding flooding concerns, a specialist drainage engineering company have provided calculations, specifications and specific design to accommodate for present day surface water drainage and a 50% over estimate to ensure future climatic conditions are provided for.

 

This development work has always been respectful of local residents, the builder never beginning work before 8am and finishing before 6pm.  One exception was Northern Power Grid began work around 7am.  we were given no prior warning of this date or start time and their admin team had omitted to notify local residents.

 

Upon completion, this small development will positively enhance the Astley Crescent street scene, completing a small community of well designed, family orientated properties and ending a negative visual impact of overgrown wasteland.

 

Scotter village and parish is a very attractive residential prospect to a large range of families and as such needs to always be forward thinking for that to continue.  Aiming to embrace progress and  work to positively support new builds and new design would be beneficial to both the parish and its community.”

 

The Chairman invited the Democratic Services Officer to read aloud the second statement, on behalf of Mr and Mrs Brown, Mr and Mrs Rion and Mr and Mrs Whitby. The following statement was read aloud.

 

“Although this application relates to 140625, we’ve been advised by Councillor Snee this should be considered as a new application, not an amendment.

 

Our concerns at the officer’s recommendation to approve 143973 are as follows.

 

Obstruction, massing and loss of amenity

We believe the application breaches policies with respect to height, massing, overshadowing and loss of amenity for all our properties. Relevant policies are Central Lincolnshire Local Plan LP26 and Scotter Neighbourhood Plan H4 and D5; D5 states new development should respect its immediate surroundings, including scale of adjacent properties – these are 4 Orchard Avenue and 56 High Street, neither are 3-storey houses.

 

The massing effect is particularly exaggerated for 4 Orchard Avenue as the dormer-style house is on land about 6 feet lower than the development site. Although not mentioned in the officer’s report, in 2005 the planning committee gave permission for a single-storey dwelling. In 2006, a government inspector visited the property and recognised the pronounced effect on 4 Orchard Avenue, concluding a 2-storey house with sensitive roof design was acceptable; a house with a hip-style roof measuring 7.76m was approved. Now, the proposal is for a 3-storey property measuring 8.3m, despite these documented massing and overbearing effects.

 

At approximately 5 metres from the conservatory of 57 Astley Crescent, the obstruction of view caused by the plot 1 garage remains a concern. This has been further exacerbated by the ridge height of the garage being built to 4.7m rather than the 4.2m permitted, resulting in an even greater massing effect. Additionally, the extremely large windows of the house on plot 1, extending from ground floor to roof, mean the property in Astley Crescent will be completely overlooked.

 

Other significant breaches have been observed: as confirmed by the Planning Officer but not included in the report, the plot 2 house is expected to be 8.84m to the ridge height when measured against the garden level of 56 High Street. This is significantly higher than the maximum height of 8.3m previously granted and seems to be a consequence of blockwork being above ground level coupled with the ground level being raised by around 1 metre, despite previous assurances that no levelling would be required. Clearly a building of this size will increase further the massing effect.

 

Flooding risk

We have repeatedly raised concerns that the extensive nature of this build leaves very little opportunity for surface absorption of water. During the garage build, 57 Astley Crescent experienced excessive flooding. With heavy rainfall, water migrated under the fence line by approximately 1.5m, rendering the garden a boggy mess. Photographs have been submitted to this committee and were also submitted to the council on 29^th January 2021. At great personal expense and in a bid to protect the property, all the original fencing on the boundary has been replaced with a more substantially reinforced structure.

 

56 High Street also experienced flooding, exacerbated by the newly created differential in ground level between their garden and the building site.

 

Now both houses are planned to be even wider, the opportunity for water absorption is further reduced and so flooding risk increased.

 

We note Lincolnshire County Council Highways Department does not wish to object, but this is on the basis that it “is classified as a Minor Application and it is therefore the duty of the Local Planning Authority to consider the surface water risk for this planning application”. Whilst the previous application did provide for disposal of foul and surface water, there are no visual signs of any such measures. Therefore, we respectfully ask this is addressed ahead of any approval and monitored throughout the build.

 

Noise

Previously, noisy work on the site started early, finished late and continued during weekends and bank holidays, causing disruption at unsociable and inconsiderate times. For all parties to be clear from the outset and provide respite from noise, we ask a condition is proactively applied now to avoid future issues. Provision is made for managing noise in the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and would be in line with other council practices.

 

To conclude, we believe the committee will rely primarily on the officer’s recommendation but we ask full consideration is given to our concerns and the significant breaches of the previous planning permission. We’d welcome a visit by you to the site and the neighbouring properties as we firmly believe this is the best way to fully understand the issues we’ve raised. We remain of the view the previous plans were in conflict with the policies specified earlier. Now all buildings are larger, we and the Parish Council remain convinced of this view. We’d like to understand how, therefore, a recommendation to approve can still be made. Limitations such as a maximum ridge height of 8.3m were set for a reason yet now are seemingly being overturned. Surely this undermines the planning process, allowing applicants to adjust their build and retrospectively gain permission.

 

Thank you.”

 

The Chairman thanked the Democratic Services Officer and invited response from the Planning Officer. He confirmed that the plans stated a maximum height of 8.3m and enforcement action would be taken if it exceeded that. He reiterated that the nearest neighbour had a ridge height of 8.9m. With regards to noise issues, it could be investigated through Environmental Health and there had been no issues identified regarding flooding. It was also noted that the application before the Committee was to consider the amended conditions. The Legal Adviser added that any unamended existing conditions that had not yet been satisfied would be transferred over and whilst new conditions could be included, they should only be what could have been imposed on the original application and not be excessive. The Planning Officers had confirmed there was not demonstrable necessity for additional conditions.

 

Having had the location of the soakaways confirmed by the Planning Officer, the recommendation was moved and seconded. The Chairman took the vote and it was unanimously agreed that permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions.

 

 

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

 

None.

 

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

 

1. The local planning authority shall be notified in writing of the intention to commence the archaeological investigations in accordance with the approved written scheme (approved under application 142016), at least 14 days before the said commencement.

 

Reason: To ensure the preparation and implementation of an appropriate scheme of archaeological mitigation and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

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

 

2. The development shall only be carried out using the agreed materials approved under application 142016.

 

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the site to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

3. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved foul and surface water drainage scheme (approved under application 142016) and completed prior to occupation of the dwelling it serves.

 

Reason: To ensure adequate drainage facilities are provided to serve the development in accordance with Policy LP14 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

4. With the exception of the detailed matters referred to by the conditions of this consent, the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings: 1378.01A dated 24/11/2021, 1378.02A dated 24/11/2021, 1378.03A dated 24/11/2021, 1378.04A dated 24/11/2021, 1378.05A dated 24/11/2021, 1378.06 dated September 2021 and 1378.07A dated 24/11/2021. The works shall 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 in the interests of proper planning.

 

5. New hardstanding shall be constructed from a porous material or shall be appropriately drained within the site and shall be retained as such thereafter.

 

Reason: To ensure appropriate drainage to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy LP14 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

6. The development shall proceed wholly in accordance with the approved scheme of archaeological works approved by condition 1 of this permission.

 

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory archaeological investigation and retrieval of archaeological finds in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework

 

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

 

7. Following the archaeological site work referred to in condition 6 a written report of the findings of the work shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority within 3 months of the said site work being completed.

 

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory archaeological investigation and retrieval of archaeological finds in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework

 

8. The report referred to in condition 7 and any artefactual evidence recovered from the site shall be deposited within 6 months of the archaeological site work being completed in accordance with a methodology and in a location to be agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

 

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory archaeological investigation and retrieval of archaeological finds in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework

 

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, AA, B, C, D and E of Schedule 2 Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) Order 2015, or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, the dwellings hereby permitted shall not be altered or extended, no new windows shall be inserted, and no buildings or structures shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwellings unless planning permission has first been granted by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To enable any such proposals to be assessed in terms of their impact on the living conditions of the host dwelling/the resulting amount of space around the host dwelling and to safeguard the character and appearance of the building and its surroundings and in accordance with in accordance with Policies LP17 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

Informative

 

Conditions

As a variation of condition application (143973) will create a brand new permission in itself, a review of conditions originally imposed on 140625 needs to be undertaken.

 

Without this any new permission would be unrestricted.

 

Application 142016 discharged conditions 2 (written scheme of archaeological

investigation), 3 (external materials) and 4 (Foul and Surface Water Drainage),

 

The development is already under construction, therefore Condition 1 (Time) of 140625 does not need to be carried forward to this permission.

 

An amended Condition 5 (Plans) will be carried forward to this permission (143973) as will conditions 6 (Hardstanding), 7, 8 and 9 (Archaeology), 10 (Removal of Permitted Development Rights).