Agenda item

Proposal: Residential development comprising the erection of four detached dwellings and renovation/enlargement of existing dwelling

Location: The Gables, Honington Road, Barkston, Lincolnshire, NG32 2NG

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director of Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

Proposal: Residential development comprising the erection of four detached dwellings and renovation/enlargement of existing dwelling

Location: The Gables, Honington Road, Barkston, Lincolnshire, NG32 2NG

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director of Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

Noting comments made in the public speaking session by:

Against:                        David Baker

                                     Beryl Hencher

Together with:

·       Provisions within the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan 2011-2036 and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·       No comments received from Barkston Parish Council.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways and SuDS).

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

(Councillor Julia Reid left the meeting at 14:45)

During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:

·       One Member commented on the density of the proposed development.

It was acknowledged that plots 2 and 3 were large in scale. The application had been assessed on its own merits and it had been deemed acceptable due to the separation distances and the style of the properties.

·       Whether the proposed development and plots 2 and 3, complied with policies SP2, SP3C, DE1A and DE1B.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the character of the development had been assessed and was considered acceptable. The separation distances met those suggested with the Council’s Design Guidelines SPD and were considered acceptable. The front elevations of plots 2 and 3 would front onto a public area and therefore a reduced separation distance could be considered.

It was confirmed that plot 4 had a garage in between the side elevation of another property on an oblique angle.

·       Whether the proximity of plot 4 and 1 Thorold Gardens had been through design PAD.

The development had not been through design pad, this scale of development would not always be considered by design PAD.

The relationship between plot 4 and 1 Thorold Gardens was considered to be acceptable where 2 properties were adjacent to one another.

·       A query was raised around the representations received to the Council on the application.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the objection had been received and considered as part of the application. All points addressed were in relation to amenity, which had been assessed in detail against the relevant policies of the Local Plan and National Planning Policy Framework.

·       Whether any windows would overlook plot 2 and the appropriateness of requesting obscure-glazed windows.

It was confirmed that there would be 6 windows on the rear elevation of plot 2, the separation distance was above the 21-metre guidance for back-to-back dwellings. 3 of the windows would serve an en-suite or bathroom, which could be conditioned for obscure glazed windows.

·       Further clarification was sought on the relationship between the frontages of plots 2 and 3 in relation to the 25-degree rule.

The 25-degree guidance would apply to the rear of a property impacting the rear of another property. The 25-degree guidance did not necessarily apply in this instance due to the front elevation fronting onto a public realm in terms of overlooking.

Members raised disappointment over the layout and scale of the some of the properties on the site and the lack of a sensitive design. The relevant policies were discussed in relation to the sensitivity of adjacent properties, nature and character, scale and massing which could result in overdevelopment of the site. Concern was raised regarding overlooking of plot 2 onto existing properties.

Concern was raised on the impact the application may have on existing residents in the rural area.

One Member noted the poor condition of the trees as seen at the site visit.

The Assistant Director of Planning highlighted paragraph 7.7.5 of the report, which outlined the consideration of whether trees would be suitable for protection or not. The conclusion was that the trees were not suitable for a Tree Protection Order.

·       A query was raised regarding the 25-degree guidance in relation to rural areas with regards to plots 2 and 3. Representation had noted that the degree line had been breached.

·       What the outcome of an appeal decision would be if the application was refused in relation to the 25-degree guidance.

Plots 2 and 3 were either side of a standard road and set back from the road itself. If the plots were back-to-back and the 25-degree guidance was breached, the application would have been considered to have an unacceptable impact on amenity and design changes would have been requested in terms of layout.

The Development Management & Enforcement Manager clarified that the 25-degree rule was guidance that was embedded within existing policies regarding existing residents and future occupiers in terms of impact on amenity. The wording around the 25-degree rule was explained to Members.

A query was raised regarding plans to adopt the road and if it would be ‘public’ or remain a private access.  

The Development Management & Enforcement Manager clarified that even if the access road was private and not adopted, the intervisibility between the properties would be the same between the two future occupiers and would still be used by vehicles.

The Committee expressed further concern around the design and proximity between plot 2 and 3, further issues around the brick wall elevation of plot 4 and overlooking of other properties.

The Assistant Director of Planning sought further clarification from the Committee on reasons for refusal regarding relationships between the properties within plots or properties adjoining the plots.

It was queried as to whether climate change mitigation could be included within the application. 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to REFUSE the application by virtue of its layout and design being cramped and contrived and out of keeping with the prevailing character of the area (size and massing of plots 2 and 3) and has a poor relationship with the surrounding dwellings causing harm to the amenity of the area and the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. Contrary to policies SP2/3 C/D, DE1 A and B.