Agenda and minutes

Any information received after the agenda has been published, relevant to the Applications on the agenda to be considered by the Committee, will be published here.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Stokes.

          Councillor Winslade attended as a substitute.

          There were no declarations from Members of the Committee to make representation as Ward Councillor on any item within the agenda.

Permission was sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling under application number 11/00257/CON.

Under application number 11/00256/FUL The applicant proposed to replace the existing dwelling with a two storey four bedroom dwelling and a detached double garage with store/games room above.

The dwelling would be sited 44 metres from the front of the site.

The site lay within the Thornhaugh Conservation Area and had been subject to several applications for residential redevelopment over the past 5 years. The site consisted of a 1.5 storey chalet type dwelling sited centrally within the plot 31 metres from the plot access, at the top of a hill. The site was surrounded by a mixture of dwellings. Numerous period dwellings existed along Meadow Lane, which were stone built and followed the local vernacular. To the north was the Listed Manor House and to the north east and east were modern dwellings, the majority being bungalows. To the south were open fields and the A47 beyond.

The site itself was approximately 75 metres deep by 38 metres at its widest point and was fairly extensively treed, especially to the south at the rear of the site.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. Members were advised that the main issues for consideration were the size, scale and appearance of the replacement dwelling and proposed garage, the impact of the proposed dwelling and garage on the amenity of neighbours and the impact of the proposal on the Thornhaugh Conservation Area.  The recommendation was one of approval.  Members were advised that each of the applications were to be determined separately.

Members were advised that a previous application had been refused at appeal by a Planning Inspector. The appeal decision was appended to the committee report.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. Feedback had been received from the Parish Council in regards to the latest set of drawings submitted. The Parish Council remained concerned with the application as did the surrounding neighbours. A suggestion had been put forward from the Parish Council to lower the levels on the site by one metre, this had been put to the agent who had responded saying that half a metre would possibly be achievable however the lowering of the site could have a detrimental impact on the proposed retained trees and there would be an issue with the distribution of soil removed.

Councillor Holdich and Councillor Lamb, Ward Councillors and Councillor Witherington, a Thornhaugh Parish Councillor, addressed the Committee jointly and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·        It was accepted in principle that a dwelling should be built upon the site

·        The main body of the house, at 9.3 metres to the apex, was excessive

·        The site lay on the top of a hill and this should be taken into account. The house would be taller than the other houses in the area apart from the listed Manor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The applications had arisen as a result of the unauthorised works / advert at the newly opened day nursery being reported to the Planning Compliance (planning enforcement) team. Work had already been completed on the canopy and play equipment without obtaining Planning Permission.

Permission was therefore sought retrospectively for:

External Canopy – This application sought permission for the retrospective erection of a side and rear canopy. The side canopy measured 13300mm X 1400mm in footprint, 2000mm to the eaves and 2600mm in height. The rear canopy measured 7800mm X 2900mm in footprint, 2300mm to the eaves and 2600 in height.

External Play Equipment – The application also sought permission to erect a tree house. This consisted of a raised timber platform built around a tree, measuring 3300mm X 2000mm in footprint. The height of the standing platform was 1300mm and an overall height of 2300mm.

Banner Signage – The application sought permission for a retrospective banner sign located on the north side frontage of the premises. The sign measured 4000mm X 1000mm and was located 900mm from the ground, therefore having a 1900mm overall height. The sign was yellow and advertised the opening which was in January 2011.

The site consisted of a single storey nursery building that was a converted residential bungalow. Vehicular access to the site was taken off Pyecroft, a quiet cul-de-sac and parking was provided off road to the rear.  The rear garden area was enclosed by 1.8m high close boarded fencing and green weld mesh fencing.

The surrounding area of the site was predominantly residential with 1940’s houses and bungalows either side of the road. The application site was located on a prominent corner plot that is viewed in the streetscene when driving either way along Garton End Road.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the main issues those being that the canopy had taken on a ‘temporary’ appearance by virtue of the materials used, the play equipment detrimentally impacted on the amenity of the neighbouring dwelling and the impact of the proposal on the character of the area. The recommendation was one of refusal.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. An objection had been received from a neighbour in relation to the canopy and supporting comments had also been received from Councillor Nadeem. And a further email in support of the application had been submitted from Children’s Services.

In principle, the canopy was not objected to by Officers, however, the low quality of the roofing materials used on the construction was an issue. If more robust materials had been used, the canopy would have been acceptable. Officers did however object to the tree house because when children were playing in the house, they could overlook the neighbour’s garden. The banner advert was also considered to be excessive. If the banner was reduced in size it could become permitted development and this had been advised to the applicant.

Councillor Shearman and Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The proposal was for a new school building to replace the existing Welland Primary School. The reasons for the proposal included the increased birth rate in the locality and the significant residential development of the former John Mansfield School Site which could be expected to generate increased demand for primary school places. An assessment had been made of the feasibility of retaining and extending the existing school but it was considered to be below the standards of the requirements of modern education facilities.

The existing school had been, since first opening, a one form entry school. As of September 2011 Welland school would become a two form entry school that over a period of 5 – 6 years was to have an increase in pupil numbers double the existing i.e. a total of 420 children. This would mean an intake of up to 60 new pupils each year. The new school was to comprise of 14 teaching classroom, (the existing school had 5) with the number of staff projected to increase to 60 full time employees, (the existing school had 36). Children’s age ranges would be from Reception to Year 6. The school would also contain a larger and a smaller hall.

The proposed new school was to be located to the rear of the existing school buildings which also would involve taking in the whole area of open space, the use of which was shared between the school and the general public, which lay between the eastern boundary of the Welland school curtilage and the western boundary of the Marshfield’s School curtilage (a distance of between 100 – 115 metres with a width of approximately 110 metres). This had been proposed to enable the continued use of the existing school during the period of the construction of the new school to ensure minimum disruptions to the education of the pupils during construction. Upon completion of the new school the existing school buildings would be completely demolished. It was anticipated that should planning permission be granted the new school would be open for the start of the 2012/13 school year.

The footprint of the proposed school was of an approximate ‘T’ shaped/L’ shaped design. The front elevation of the school was set back approximately 4 metres from the rearmost elevation of the existing school building and thus 80 metres from Scalford Drive to the west. The nearest the school would be to the rear boundaries of the residential properties in Eastern Avenue would be 36 metres with the majority of this south elevation of the new building to be 44 metres away. The dwellings along the northern side of Eastern Avenue had rear garden depths in the region of 18 metres. The nearest extent of the new building to residential properties in Redmile Walk to the north would be 28 metres with the majority being 42 metres away.

The new school was to be a tall single storey building comprised of principally pitched, mono-pitched and hipped roofs with a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Committee was advised that the application had been withdrawn.

The proposal was to erect 2, 4 bed dwellings. Each dwelling had a double garage served off Woodgate Lane, and its own dedicated rear amenity spaces.

Further, amendments had been requested following Highways and Conservation Comments. Additional plans had been received;

·  Drawing 564-37-02-DD-01 Rev B – Elevations and Floor Plans illustrating rain water goods and increase in height of boundary wall (700mm).

·  Site Plan 546-37-SP01 Rev D – Site Plan illustrating revised access and wall positioning.

The site had been subject to several applications for residential redevelopment over the past 5 years. In 2006 the site was host to a 1960’s bungalow, now demolished. Footings had been constructed on site, however these were not in accordance with a previous approved scheme and work had since stopped. In 2010 an application for 3 dwellings was refused at Committee as it was considered the proposal was overdevelopment of the site and the proposal did not reflect the character or appearance of buildings in Maxey (see section 5). The site was cordoned off by security fencing and is effectively rough ground.

The site was within Maxey’s conservation area and was a key feature in the village street scene. The surrounding land uses were residential with a bus depot/workshop (Shaws of Maxey) to the West.

The Barn on Woodgate Lane, 26 & 28 High Street situated to the immediate North and East were Grade 2 listed buildings.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The main issues for consideration were the policy context and the principle of development, the design and visual amenity, whether the proposal would impact on the Historic Environment and Highways implications. The recommendation was one of approval.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. There had been additional representations received from Maxey Parish Council and The Barn, the property located adjacent to the proposal site, expressing concerns around the proposal. There had also been comments received from Highways stating that there were no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions as listed in the update report.

Councillor Hiller addressed the Committee and stated that the site was at the heart of a conservation village, surrounded by listed properties. The previous application had not been sensitive to the site, however this proposal was sympathetic to the plot and Councillor Hiller stated that he believed it would fit in with the village and the Parish Council comment was out of context, being in relation to the original application for two properties back in 2006 which had been subsequently approved.

Following debate, a motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application, subject to the Highways conditions and informatives as detailed in the update report and an additional condition stating that the garages should not be allowed to be turned into living accommodation. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (Unanimously) to approve the application, as per officer recommendation subject to:

1.      The conditions numbered C1 to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.