Agenda item

To consider applications received for the grant of planning permission – reports prepared by the Case Officer.                                                                                                       (Enclosure)

 

The anticipated order of consideration is as shown on the agenda, but this may be subject to change, at the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee.

Decision:-

 

To determine applications, or make observations, as listed below:-

 

NB1

 

Application ref:         S13/0728/FULL

 

Description:               Replacement dwelling and new vehicular access

 

Location:                    1A, Castlegate, Castle Bytham, Grantham, Lincolnshire

 

Decision:                   Refused

 

Noting comments made during the public speaking session from:-

 

                        Councillor H Bakker – Castle Bytham Parish Council

                        Mr Patrick Candler – objecting

                        Susan Blunt – objecting

                        Mr D Lane – objecting

                        Mr R Garnett – agent

 

together with no objection from the Principal Conservation Officer or Environment Agency, objections from the Parish Council, comments from Lincolnshire Heritage, English Heritage and the Highway Authority and a number of objections from nearby residents; late information report circulated to Members prior to the meeting including comments from the Tree Officer, English Heritage and no objection from the Highway Authority, officer comment thereon and suggested alterations to conditions from the Highway Authority, and a changed recommendation to refuse, report of site inspection and comments made by Members at the meeting.

 

The Case Officer advised that since the late report had been produced, English Heritage had confirmed that they had no objection to the proposal, and that consequently the suggested second reason for refusal was not now appropriate.

 

It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused as being against public feeling, against Policy EN1, neither enhancing nor protecting the Conservation Area, visually intrusive, detracting from the adjoining listed building, loss of privacy, detracting from the street scene, effect on the trees on the site and the proposed scale and size of the proposed dwelling were not acceptable.

 

The Development Management Service Manager advised that whilst he could accept most of the reasons given, which reflected the remaining reason on page 3 of the late report, the reference to the proposed development being against public opinion was not a reason, and the loss of privacy was not sustainable.  The proposer of the motion accepted the comments and withdrew these from the suggested reasons for refusal, although expressing some reservations about the loss of privacy reason.

 

On being put to the vote the proposal was agreed and the application refused for the following reasons:-

 

1)    A number of trees, which are worthy of protection and prominent within the streetscape are proposed to be removed, allowing their removal would be harmful to the character of the streetscene and wider Conservation Area by virtue of their location height, prominence and predicated longevity.  The application is therefore deemed contrary to guidance contained in policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Core Strategy; with no other material planning considerations to indicate that the application should be determined otherwise.

 

2)    The proposed replacement dwelling would, by virtue of scale and mass, neither   respect nor preserve the character of the Conservation Area as well be harmful to the setting of the adjacent Listed Building with it being visually intrusive within the street scene.  The application is, therefore, deemed contrary to policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Core Strategy and guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

NB2

 

Application Ref:       S13/0729/CAC

 

Description:               Demolition of existing bungalow

 

Location:                    1A, Castlegate, Castle Bytham, Grantham, Lincolnshire

 

Decision:                   Refused

 

Noting comments made during the public speaking session from:-

 

                        Mr Patrick Candler – objecting

                        Mr R Garnett – agent

 

together with no objection from the Principal Conservation Officer or Lincolnshire Heritage and a number of objections from nearby residents, report of site inspection and comments made by Members at the meeting.

 

It was proposed, seconded and agreed that the application be refused for the following reason:-

 

In the absence of a scheme that would enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area the application for the demolition of the bungalow is considered to be unacceptable.  The loss of building would not preserve the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and would be contrary to Policy EN1 of South Kesteven Core Strategy along with the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

AH1

 

Application ref:         S13/0150/MJRF

 

Description:               Erection of 15 no.dwellings with access (off Belvoir Close), parking, landscaping and associated works

 

Location:                    Land off Belvoir Close, Stamford

 

Decision:                   Deferred

 

Noting comments made during the public speaking session from:-

 

                        Neil Osborne – agent

 

together with no objection from Planning Policy, the Highway Authority, Consultant Arboriculturalist, Lead Local Flood Authority, Property and Facilities, Anglian Water and Environment Agency, comments from Stamford Town Council, Environmental Health, LCC Children’s Services, SKDC Leisure and Communities, Heritage Trust of Lincolnshire, Affordable Housing Officer, Crime Prevention Design Advisor and Natural England, together with representations from local residents and a note of the proposed Section 106 Heads of Terms; late information report circulated to Members before the meeting including information in relation to the request made by Stamford Town Council about monies from the Section 106 agreement and officer comment thereon, report of site inspection and comments made by Members at the meeting.

 

(2.18pm – Councillor Stokes left the meeting).

 

(2.20pm – Councillor Stokes returned to the meeting).

 

It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

Following comments in regard to the lack of a pavement on the access road, it was suggested that the application be only approved subject to a requirement that a footpath be provided.

 

The proposer and seconder agreed to include this within the proposition.

 

Following further discussion in relation to the footpath issue and the provision and maintenance of hedgerows, the Chairman suggested that further consideration be deferred to enable the applicants to consider the issues raised by Members and come back with amended plans.  The proposer and seconded of the motion to approve then withdrew this motion.

 

A Member proposed that further consideration be deferred for the reasons suggested by the Chairman.  Further discussion then took place, in relation to the style and content of the development and in relation to the retention of the copper beech tree at the entrance to the site. 

 

On the suggestion of the Chairman, the meeting adjourned to enable consideration to be given to the terms of a motion to defer consideration of the application.

 

(The meeting adjourned from 3.20pm to 3.42pm).

 

On the resumption of the meeting, the Committee Support Officer read the terms of a suggested motion for deferral, as follows:-

 

“That application S13/0150 be deferred for consideration by the applicant to include for a footpath to the driveway and for a planting scheme to incorporate new and existing hedgerows that shall be maintained by the householders for the lifetime of the development and for the inclusion of a mature copper beech tree as a replacement for the existing.”

 

The above motion was proposed and seconded.

 

Members then discussed whether or not it would be appropriate to include a requirement to consider bungalows on the site, and it was accordingly proposed and seconded that this be added to the above motion as an amendment.  On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed, and the following was added to the original proposition:-

 

“Consideration should also be given to the inclusion of bungalows on this site.”

 

The amended motion was then put to the vote and agreed, and the application was deferred for the following reason:-

 

“That application S13/0150 be deferred for consideration by the applicant to include for a footpath to the driveway and for a planting scheme to incorporate new and existing hedgerows that shall be maintained by the householders for the lifetime of the development and for the inclusion of a mature copper beech tree as a replacement for the existing.  Consideration should also be given to the inclusion of bungalows on this site.”

 

PL1

 

Application ref:         S12/2469/FULL

 

Description:               Variation of Condition 5 (delivery hours) of p/p S09/2256 to 0600 to 2300 hours Monday to Saturday and 0700 to 2000 hours on Sundays

 

Location:                    Tesco Stores Ltd, Godsey Lane, Market Deeping, Peterborough

 

Decision:                   Withdrawn

 

This application had been withdrawn by the applicants.

 

(3.50pm – Councillor Mrs Brenda Sumner left the meeting).

 

PJM1

 

Application ref:         S13/0821/HSH

 

Description:               Ground floor rear extension and installation of lift.      

 

Location:                    29, Hobart Road, Grantham, Lincolnshire

 

Decision:                   Approved

 

Noting no representations following consultation, and comments made by Members at the meeting.

 

It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved, subject to the summary of reasons set out by the Case Officer in the circulated report, and subject also to the following conditions:-

 

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
   
   
2. The external finishes of the development hereby permitted shall match in material, colour, style, bonding and texture those of the existing building.
   
   
3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following list of approved plans submitted as part of the application:
   
   Drawing Number: DFAMB29/03 dated 21st March 2013
   Drawing Number: DFAMB29/04 dated 21st March 2013
   
   Note(s) to Applicant

1. You are advised that the application site falls within an area affected by Radon. You are asked to contact the Council’s Building Control section (telephone number 01476 406187) to ascertain the level of protection required and whether a geological assessment is necessary.

 

(3.54pm – Councillor Mrs Brenda Sumner returned to the meeting).