Agenda item

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the next application of the meeting, planning application 145619, for demolition of existing house and construction of a new self-build replacement two and a half storey dwelling and detached garage with accommodation at first floor level - being variation of condition 3 of planning permission 139843 granted 24 October 2019, amended drawings to alter the carport off the east elevation of the dwelling, at Egmont, 23 Wragby Road, Sudbrooke, Lincoln, LN2 2QU.

 

The Development Management Team stated that there were no updates, and gave a short presentation on the application.

 

The Chairman advised there were four registered speakers for the application, and invited the first registered statement, from Councillor Peter Heath, the Chairman of Sudbrooke Parish Council, to be read aloud by the Democratic and Civic Officer. The following statement was read aloud.

 

“Sudbrooke Parish Council object to this proposal on the grounds of Over-looking and loss of privacy. The application for this building was initially for the demolition of a 2-storey house and the construction of a 3-storey house that ran the width of the plot.  The new construction was repositioned further back on the plot and as a result directly overlooked the neighbouring house, resulting a in a loss of privacy.  Sudbrooke Parish Council objected on these grounds.

 

Following our objection, the design was changed to lower the right-hand side of the house to a single storey with a pitched roof. Sudbrooke Parish Council felt that this concession reduced the impact on the neighbour and raised no further objections.  The new proposed change to the single storey now creates a 2-storey building with roof windows that will once again overlook the neighbouring house with the resulting loss of privacy.

 

Since the original planning application was lodged, Sudbrooke has had its Neighbourhood Plan adopted. We believe that this change conflicts with Policy 2, 1 (b) of the Plan.

 

b) The extensions 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.

 

For the above reason, Sudbrooke Parish Council object to this proposal.”

 

The Chairman thanked the Officer for reading the statement, and invited the applicant, Mr Sath Vaddaram, to give his statement.

 

“Good evening, my name is Sath Vaddaram, I am the applicant and, contrary to statements made by objectors, I live at Egmont in the original property and have been there for 14 years. I am keen to have this matter concluded which allows to complete our new home and the old property removed. This application is for a revised roof form to the car port only, new house has been approved, is substantially constructed, and is not a matter for consideration under this application. Current proposal have been adjusted to take into account comments made on previous submissions for the car port roof and have been recommended for approval by your Officer in his report and confirmed as addressing those concerns and meeting all the relevant planning criteria.

 

This application is before this committee based on “outstanding” objections from the Parish Council, those are patently out of date as confirmed by them that “the council has been unable to meet formally” and “their objections remain unaltered on the following grounds” yet all of the grounds mentioned in their objection were addressed in the current proposals, again confirmed by the officer’s recommendation for approval. The Parish Council have clearly failed to fully consider the current proposals resulting in this agenda item and a delay to any decision.

 

While I accept that anyone has a right to comment on my proposals, it should be noted that nearly all the comments made on this application relate to the size and design of the original approved house and they are not relevant. Furthermore, Sun path analysis has been provided to demonstrate that current proposals, the car port roof form, do not add any additional overlooking or overbearing impact on the adjacent properties.

 

It should also be noted that there are cultural differences in play here, you will have noticed from my name and appearance that I am of an Indian descent and it’s a key part of our cultural heritage that we respect and care for our parents in their old age rather than expect the state to do so. This means, there is an inbuilt desire for larger properties suitably designed and equipped to allow us to do this when the time comes. This is a choice that should be supported.

 

I am also a developer and have made many applications both in West Lindsey and in other Councils. I have noted that in Sudbrooke particularly, there seems to be a different attitude to these both from the public objectors and Parish Council. For example, at 30 Wragby Road Sudbrooke I have made two proposals, both of them were refuse even though both had officer’s recommendations for approval before going to committee and both were subsequently approved at appeal.

 

There seems to be resistance to any proposals I make in Sudbrooke whether these are on the basis of being a developer, my ethnicity or a general resistance to change is open to speculation but these concerns do seem to be relevant and are borne out by other applicants too for e.g. at 12 Scothern Lane with ref number 145617 where again a larger extension by persons of Indian descent is objected to by both parish council and locals.

 

In conclusion, this application for a revised roof form to the car port only, the existing house benefits from a previous approval and is substantially built and these proposals have been adjusted from previous applications to address legitimate concerns raised and are recommended for approval by your Officers. I urge the Committee to understand the reason behind this application is just to correct the architectural mistake made at the initial approved application stage, not anything else. I trust you will follow your Officers advice and approve these minor changes as there are no valid planning reasons to prevent. Please to allow me to complete my family home. Thank you.”

 

The Chairman thanked the speaker for his statement, and then invited the Democratic and Civic Officer to read out the statement from the first registered objector, Andrew Barber. The following statement was read to Members.

 

“Unfortunately I am unable to attend the committee because I am mostly housebound and need to have oxygen, however I felt I wanted to put some context behind our objection and appreciate the opportunity to have our statement read out. For Context. This development is very large for a residential property in a small village. It seems to be being built very close to the border with Number 21.

 

This has had an overwhelming negative impact on the privacy and light for number 21. There are large windows with direct views of our Kitchen/Office/Main Bedroom.  Our outside amenity areas are directly overlooked by multiple balconies and numerous large windows. This will have a very negative affect on our privacy and light. This development has had detrimental impact on vulnerable people who live nearby. Overall, we are disappointed and upset and concerned about the property

 

Planning 145619. Looking at this appeal we don't feel any new evidence has been presented to alter the original decision. It will increase the size of the building which is already extremely imposing. It will adversely alter even further the street scene. It will have a detrimental effect on the light and privacy of the neighbours at 21 and 23.  This planning application is unreasonable because of the adverse effects it will have on the neighbouring properties. Thank you for taking time to listen to our points.”

 

The Chairman thanked the Democratic and Civic Officer for reading the statement, and invited the Officer to read out the second and final objectors’ statement, from Bob and Margaret Reeves. The following statement was read aloud.

 

“Enough is enough to be dominated by the size and height of the Egmont house and overlooked from the south facing bedroom windows and the protruding balcony. To agree the application for an increase to the height and slope of the carport roof plus roof windows will mean increased lack of privacy and greater rainfall runoff for 25 Wragby Road which is intolerable. The legality of the closeness of the carport to the western boundary of No. 25 should be verified.”

 

The Chairman thanked the Officer for reading the statement, and invited a response from the Planning Officer. The Development Management Team Manager stated that the application looked at the variation for the single-storey garage element, and that the full application had approved a slightly lower roof height intended for storage.

 

The Chairman invited comments from Members of the Committee. Members made remarks on the current height of the dwelling, the street setting and trees surrounding the properties on Wragby Road, and the original design of the dwelling, and commented on the nature of the statement from the agent.

 

In response to a query about the conditioning of the space and windows, the Development Management Team Manager explained that the conditions would have to be necessary, reasonable, and enforceable. In his professional opinion, the application should be treated as a fully residential space, and he would have concerns over the ability to enforce the condition. The Officer also stated that the skylight proposed was to be opaque. In a separate query about the application, Members heard that a change to a flat top was to allow a skylight to be placed on the property.

 

During the debate, a proposal to refuse the application, based on the Sudbrooke Neighbourhood Plan policies emerged, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. After consultation between the Legal Advisor, the Development Management Team Manager, and the Vice Chairman, the wording for the refusal was read aloud. Since this was the only motion that had been proposed and seconded, the Chairman took the vote on the application to refuse.

 

Having been proposed and seconded, the Chairman took the vote, and it was agreed that permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

 

1.     The development would result in harm to the amenities enjoyed at the neighbouring property, through its scale and the introduction of first floor windows which would significantly reduce the neighbour’s private amenities. This would be in conflict with Policy LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and Policy 2 of the Sudbrooke Neighbourhood Plan.

 

Supporting documents: