Agenda item

Proposal: Section 73 application for the removal of Condition 4 (Obscure glazing) following planning permission S25/0588

Location: TheConifers, School Lane, Old Somerby, Lincolnshire, NG33 4AQ

Recommendation:To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to REFUSE planning permission

Proposal: Section 73 application for the removal of Condition 4 (Obscure glazing) following planning permission S25/0588

Location: The Conifers, School Lane, Old Somerby, Lincolnshire, NG33 4AQ

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to REFUSE planning permission

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

Applicant                                                Anita Selby

Together with:

·       Provisions within South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036, Design Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document and National Planning Policy Framework.

·       Comments received from Old Somerby Parish Council.

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

The following comments were made by the public speaker:

-       That a Code of Conduct complaint had been submitted following the Planning Committee meeting in June 2025 in relation to a member of the Committee, however, it was still under review. The Public Speaker felt the application would not be given fair consideration.

(The Committee adjourned for 5 minutes, to take legal advice).

The Chairman confirmed a live Code of Conduct case was with the Monitoring Officer. In the interests of fairness and transparency, the member of the Committee concerned would not participate in the debate or vote for this item. The member concerned had not been informed of the compliant prior to the meeting. This was not a reflection of whether or not that member was guilty of any breaches of the Code of Conduct. The Member concerned left the Chamber.

-       That prior to the Committee site visit, the neighbour had cut down their eucalyptus tree during nesting season.

-       The fence had been reduced in height, making one section 5ft 8. It was noted the fence could be extended to 6ft 5.

-       The Parish Council were supportive of the Application.

-       A previous Chief Planning Officer of the Council had endorsed the comments.

-       The Applicant provided photographs and stated the neighbours garden could not be seen, therefore, felt there was not a privacy issue.

During questions to public speaker, Members commented on the following:

-       A query was raised on whether the window was currently clear glass or obscure.

The Principle Development Management Planner clarified the photograph shown by the Applicant was of a clear glass window. The Committee were notified the condition was currently in breach due to the window being clear glass, rather than obscure.

During questions to officers and debate, Members commented on the following:

-       One Member felt the matter should be referred to Enforcement, due to the breach of condition.

The Chairman highlighted that she had attended the Site Visit and stood on the floor inside the built extension. It was possible to view the seating area of the neighbours through the space provided for the side window. She explained that the garden room had been added to the bungalow on the ground floor and extended along the neighbour’s garden.

Final decision

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:

(1)  It is the Local Planning Authority’s assessment that there has been no material change in circumstances since the previous assessment of the application, such that removal of the condition has not been justified. As such, the proposed application would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring amenity contrary to Policy DE1 of the adopted Local Plan. There are no material planning considerations to indicate that planning permission should be granted contrary to the adopted Development Plan.

The Chairman added that if the applicant was unhappy with the decision they could Appeal. She also stated that officers may consider progressing enforcement action as suggested.

(Councillor Penny Milnes did not participate in the debate or vote on this application).