Agenda item

The Chairman introduced the final application of the meeting, application number 143877, to erect 1no. dwelling, on Land adjacent to 5 Beck Hill, Tealby. The Officer informed the Committee that there was an update to the report, having received additional correspondence regarding the right of way access. The Officer then went through a short presentation on the application.

The Chairman stated that there was one registered speaker for the application, one of the applicants, Jools Ferrier-Hanslip. The following statement was made.

The Speaker commented that she was pleased with the Officer’s recommendation of granting the property. After introducing her family, she detailed their history in the village, and the need for another dwelling on site for the family members. She commented that the proposed non-speculative design tried to reflect the character of the surrounding area. In concluding her remarks, the Speaker stated that this proposal would create their forever home, and hoped that the Committee would support the application.

The Chairman explained there were three statements submitted from objectors to be read aloud by the Democratic Services Officer, the first being from Pauline Bacon. The following statement was read aloud.

“I am not resident in Tealby but have lived closely to the area for fifty years

1.Over development of site. 2. Not in keeping with Area of outstanding natural beauty. 3. Not in keeping with Tealby conservation Area. 4. Added disturbance to neighbours. 5. Added traffic congestion on a tiny lane which already a very busy thoroughfare. Finally, 6. A worrying PRECEDENT. How many more future requests for garden spaces to be almost completely built over? I wish to thank the committee for addressing my deep concerns.”

The Chairman invited the Democratic Services Officer to read aloud the second statement, from Andrew Laing. The following statement was read aloud.

“I am a resident of Beck Hill and live about 40 yards from the proposed scheme. Our house is some 15 feet lower than the ground being considered in the application. I appreciate that our concerns about the previous application have to some extent been addressed but we remain worried that the proposed building will be out of character in an already congested area. There are, however, two matters that should be considered:”

“The effect on Beck Hill.”

“Beck Hill is a narrow lane with no pavement and no passing places for vehicles. It is generally busy with pedestrians (these are local children, elderly residents, their pets, horses and groups of walkers) It is part of “The Viking Way”. It is also used by residents’ cars and, more recently, by delivery vehicles. Pedestrians have to flatten themselves against the sides of the road to avoid accidents. The danger to children, pets, and others would only be increased as a result of the proposal. Furthermore the access entrance would be shared by three households causing additional congestion where it is already crowded.”

“Subsidence.”

“Our house, 8 Beck Hill, suffered from subsidence for several years as a result of a leak in the village Hall Higher up the Hill. Springs also appeared in our garden. Both problems were resolved when the leak was finally mended. It is probable that further subsidence and springs will occur as a result of the proposed earthworks.”

The Chairman invited the Democratic Services Officer to read aloud the third and final statement, from Gail Firkin. The following statement was read aloud.

“Further to my objection on the planning portal for application 143877 dated 22.11.21 I would like to point out that the current right of way over my drive applies to the existing property only “for the use and enjoyment of the property as a private dwelling house”.  This does not include a second, new property.”

“Therefore, access to a new property cannot be via the existing right of way to the host dwelling as stated in your minutes of a meeting held on 2.3.22.”

The Chairman thanked the Democratic Services Officer for reading the statements and invited comments from Members of the Committee.

Debate ensued, and observations were made about the design of the application, and whether it was substantially different to an application previously rejected, that the proposal was a dominant property on a small site, and ‘shoe horned’ in to the lot. Other Members drew attention to the fact that other modern developments approved by the Council had smaller square footage for property, and it was quite subservient to the existing property.

With regard to a question regarding the depth of the property, Members learnt that it was the proposed swimming pool that was 4 to 5 metres below. It was also learnt that in relation to the water course on the property that it was a private convenience, and that the applicant would have to resolve that if it was not already done. The Officer confirmed that the changes to the previously rejected application were substantial enough to grant this application since the previous one’s refusal.

Having been moved and seconded that the application be granted, the Chairman took the vote and with a majority vote against the written recommendation, the proposal was LOST.

The Chairman sought an alternate proposal. Members of the Committee expressed reasons for refusing the application on the basis of the proposal causing overcrowding and overdevelopment of the site and the immediate area. It was then suggested that due to the contrast with the surrounding properties, that the proposed development did not reflect the vernacular or tie in with the village, and that it was too big and overbearing. This was considered to be in contravention of LP26 regarding the scale and design and impact on the street scene, and LP17 regarding the impact of the village character, in the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

This was proposed, seconded, and on taking the vote, it was agreed that permission be REFUSEDfor the following reasons:

The proposed dwelling would result in the over-development of the site. It would, as a result of its scale, mass and positioning, be overbearing and would result in harm to the prevailing character and amenity of the surrounding area. This would be contrary to LP17 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.