Agenda item

The Senior Development Management Officer introduced planning application number 137326 – Land East of Hillside Cottages Main Street Burton Lincoln LN1 2RD.  This was a planning application to erect a single cottage, together with part conversion and extension of an existing garage block to form ancillary annexe with access and landscaping (a resubmission of application number 136100).

 

The Senior Development Management Officer reminded Committee that policy LP22 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP) for green wedges applied; the green wedge ran from Lincoln to the South Carlton area.  However, the site was within the development footprint, was not in a wide open area, and did not join two settlements together.

 

The first speaker on this item was Councillor Sue North of Burton by Lincoln Parish Council.  The parish council’s views are highlighted below:

 

·         The site had construction materials from Essex House, and trees and shrubbery from one of the nearby Hillside Cottages dumped onto the land;

 

·         Formerly, the land had been used as allotments, with the garages on the site being used to allow the occupants of the cottages to park their cars away from the carriageway;

 

·         There was a water channel at the back of 1 Hillside Cottage, which took the water from one of the many natural springs that ran through the site;

 

·         People who used to work the land on the allotments notified the parish council that there were many Victorian pipes that ran underneath the site that had to be worked around whilst planting;

 

·         There was concern from the parish council that major construction may divert ancient water courses and could have detrimental consequences on the Hillside Cottages;

 

·         The sewerage pipes for the three stone cottages on Middle Street also run through the proposed site, connecting to the sewer in Essex House;

 

·         The artist’s impression of the wall surrounding the site was misleading, and makes the stone walls appear higher than they actually are;

 

·         The style of the building was not in keeping with neighbouring properties;

 

·         The annexe was close to the boundary wall of Main Street, and will have a significant impact on the scenery in that part of the conservation area;

 

·         The scheme would have a detrimental effect to the streetscene in the area; the Hillside Cottages are referred to in the Burton Conservation Plan as being of significant importance;

 

·         The proposed development was in the key part of the conservation area; in the parish council’s view, the views of Hillside Cottage would be detrimentally affected, contrary to LP25 of the CLLP.  In addition, the prominent location of the site in relation to the neighbouring properties would breach LP26 of the CLLP;

 

·         Previous comments on this application still stand, and for the reasons stated above the parish council would not support this application.

 

The second speaker was James Lambert from JH Walter, the agent for the applicant.  The views of the speaker are summarised below:

 

·         The proposed site was a brownfield, infill site;

 

·         Burton had been allocated growth, and the site sat at the top of Burton’s local plan hierarchy for land release.  It would contribute to being one of the 7 sites required for Burton’s growth, without using any greenfield sites;

 

·         The earth excavation on site would allow a modest cottage to be built with no adverse impact on the neighbouring cottages;

 

·         The artist’s impressions show that the cottage will blend into the existing street scene, and the annexe was of an appropriate size;

 

·         Natural stone, lime mortar, and William Blyth natural clay tiles had been specified;

 

·         The proposal was subject to a pre-application enquiry, and the applicants met with West Lindsey District Council’s (WLDC) Conservation officer, and Planning Officer on site to ensure that the approach to the architecture, detailing, siting, orientation and outlook of the dwelling was appropriate;

 

·         The annexe would be used completely in conjunction with the main house, and would not be sold or rented separately;

 

·         WLDC had full control over alterations in the future.

 

The third speaker was Mr Richard Seabrook, objecting on behalf of the owners of 1 Hillside Cottage.  Their views are summarised below:

 

·         The spring had run underneath their cottage for at least the previous 60 years;

 

·         The new driveway would undermine the privacy of the back garden of 1 Hillside Cottage;

 

·         The comparison of the line of Essex House to the line of the new proposed developments was unfair, as Essex House was set back on a large estate surrounded by gardens;

 

·         The workshop on the site had always been a dry building; if the water course underneath the proposed development were to change course this may not be the case in the future;

 

·         The new building would loom over the back of the 5 Hillside Cottages;

 

·         An extension of the retaining wall would cut into the copper beech trees retaining ring; this should be re-examined by tree and landscape officers before proceeding;

 

·         One of the artist’s impressions made the stone walls appear higher than they are to lessen the appearance of a safety problem to the existing outbuilding;

 

·         The objections from the previous meeting on 4 April still stand, along with those made above.

 

Finally, Councillor Jackie Brockway, Ward Member for this proposed site spoke to the application, and her views are summarised below:

 

·         Support was given to those objection made above, namely LP25 and LP26 of the CLLP;

 

·         In addition, the loss of sunlight and privacy would be detrimental to neighbouring properties;

 

·         No new evidence had come forward on the presence of springs at the proposed site;

 

·         The garages did not have foundations for houses.

 

Following these speakers, the Senior Development Management Officer and the Planning and Development Manager replied to some of the concerns as follows:

 

·         During the site visit, the spring appeared to run through the front section of the development; this area would be undergoing the least amount of work as the excavation was due to take place at the rear of the property.  To date, there was no clear evidence as to where the spring were located on the site;

 

·         The illustrative drawings were intended as a guide only; as they were illustrative, they would not be exact;

 

·         Landscaping would be conditional and would be agreed at a later date.  This would involve the Tree and Landscaping Officer;

 

·         The Conservation Officer had been heavily involved and had no objections to the design, siting, scale and massing of the dwellings.

 

Members of the Planning Committee then had the opportunity to provide additional comments and questions, which are highlighted below:

 

·         The site visit was explanatory; the water flow was at the bottom of the hill, and there was no evidence that it flowed underneath the site;

 

·         Burton was a sensitive conservation area, and any development would need to be done correctly, and would need to meet criteria that would enhance the village;

 

·         A Trees Officer had been involved in the application, and there was a condition in the report to make sure measure were put in place during construction on the subject of trees.

 

It was then moved and seconded that the recommendation in the report to agree the application, subject to conditions, be overturned and on voting it was AGREED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

1. The proposed development does not take account of its historic environment or how it sits and impacts of the Burton Conservation Area, particularly in terms of design and amenity. The site is located in an unsustainable location away from transport links and shops. The proposal is therefore contrary to local policies LP13, LP25 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.