Agenda item

Application S20/0065

Proposal:                  Construction of bungalow with detached garage, erection of boundary fencing, alterations to driveway

Location:                   31 Halfleet, Market Deeping

Recommendation:     That the application is approved conditionally


Proposal:  Construction of bungalow with detached garage, erection of boundary fencing, alterations to driveway

Location:   31 Halfleet, Market Deeping

Decision:   That the application is refused


The Committee considered:


·     Provisions within the National Planning Policy Framework, the South Kesteven Local Plan and supplementary planning documents.

·     Comments but no objection from the SKDC Historic Buildings Advisor.

·     Comments but no objection from Lincolnshire County Council Minerals and Waste Planning.

·     Comments from the SKDC Arboricultural Consultant and a request for further information regarding the potential impact on surrounding trees.

·     No material objections from Market Deeping Town Council in response to the initial consultation, followed by an objection in response to the re-consultation.

·     No objection and a Highway Informative from Lincolnshire County Council Highways and SuDS Support.

·     Letters of representations received as a result of public consultation.

·     Comments made by Members at the meeting.

·     Reasons for refusal assessment.


At the meeting of the Committee on 20 January 2021 Members decided that they were minded to refuse the application. Members had been reminded that they would be required to submit their reasons for refusal to the Interim Head of Development Management within five working days. These were listed in the case officer’s report together with officer comment thereon.


Following questions posed to the Officers and debate, Members considered:


 ·    The proposals were not in keeping with the character of the area.

 ·    Members referred to and queried whether the application was compliant with policies DE1 (a, b and c), SP2, SP3, NPPF Para 70 and 122 and the SKDC Local Plan.

·     The application was viewed as overdevelopment in relation to the size of the site.

·     Members considered the application was backland development

·     The potential for a negative impact on neighbouring properties due to additional noise and loss of privacy.

·     Additional traffic in the back garden area resulting from the proposed development and the potential impact on neighbours along with highway safety.


Members were advised that whilst the officer recommendation remained one of approval, the reasons for refusal relating to impact on the character of the area and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties were considered defensible at appeal, should Members remain minded to refuse the application.


A Member asked if an additional reason for refusal relating to noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties could be added and reference be made to conflict with the NPPF (sections 5 and 12).  Officers advised there was no evidence to support the noise and disturbance reason for refusal, but it would be reasonable to include conflict with the relevant parts of the NPPF. 


A proposal was made to refuse the application as per the advice from the Interim Head of Planning and with reference to the conflict with the NPPF (sections 5 and 12), which was seconded.  As the Committee had been minded to refuse the application on 20 January 2021 and the cooling-off period had been invoked, a recorded vote was taken in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.


For:          Councillors Adams, Bellamy, Bisnauthsing, Crawford, Milnes,   Reid, Jacky Smith, Judy Smith and Selby (9)

Against:   (0)       

Abstain:   Councillors Dilks and Exton - (2)      


The vote was carried, and the application was refused for the following reasons:


The proposed development would appear incongruous and at odds with the prevailing pattern of development resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the area.  Furthermore, the dormer windows by reason of their orientation and proximity to the neighbouring property’s garden, would result in overlooking and loss of privacy, detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring property.  This would be contrary to the SKDC Local Plan Policies SP3 and DE1 and the NPPF (sections 5 and 12) and there are no other overriding material considerations that indicate otherwise.

Supporting documents: