The planning application was for the erection of a detached bungalow with relevant access at the land to the rear of 37 and 39 Lincoln Road, Glinton.
The main considerations set out in the reports were:
· Principle of Development
· Design and Layout
· Access, Parking and Highway Safety
· Neighbour Amenity
· Amenity of Future Occupiers of the proposed Dwelling
· Environmental Capital
· Flood Risk
· Section 106 and CIL Regulations
· Other Matters
It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission is refused for the reasons set out in the report.
The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:
· A previous, similar application on this site and been refused. Refusal had been on the grounds of the cramped nature of development, overdevelopment and the uncharacteristic design of the proposal.
· The proposed broad access was considered to be out of keeping with the area.
· The current proposal had sought to address these issues by increasing the size of the development site, altering the design of the access arrangement and reducing the footprint of the proposed dwelling.
· It was not considered by officers that the alterations were sufficient to address the previously raised concerns.
Councillor Bob Johnson, Glinton Parish Council, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· The application had been discussed at a meeting of the parish council, which the applicant did attend and explain their application.
· It was decided that the Parish Council would object to the proposals and were happy to accept planning officers’ recommendation for refusal.
David Shaw, Agent, and Mrs Lenton, Applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· It was suggested that the Parish Council had been evenly split 5 in favour and 5 against this application.
· The applicant wished to succeed in this application to allow for her parents to live nearby.
· The proposed access was already utilised by the care home and other residences. It was not considered that one additional residence would have a significant impact.
· It was suggested that as part of the proposal, the materials of the access could be replaced to decrease the level of noise created.
· The surrounding area was home to a number of back land developments. As such, it was not believed that this proposal would be out of character.
· It was suggested that the nature of the dwelling would attract those seeking a quiet lifestyle.
The Committee discussed the application and it was suggested that the back land nature of the development was not inconsistent with other previous developments in the surrounding area. The Committee welcomed the applicant’s suggestion to retreat the access road.
Comment was also made regarding the overdeveloped nature of the area and that the Committee should take into account current policy frameworks.
A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be refused, as per officer recommendation. The motion was defeated, three voting in favour, six voting against and one abstaining from voting.
A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, contrary to officer recommendation, subject to a condition relating to the materials used for the shared drive and other necessary conditions. The motion was carried, seven voting in favour and three voting against.
RESOLVED: (seven voted four, three voted against) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to:
· Necessary conditions; and
· A condition relating to materials for the shared drive with the objective of trying to secure a tarmac finish subject to the ability to achieve this given its shared status.
Reasons for the decision
It was not considered that the proposal would alter the character of the area, as there were a number of back land developments in the surrounding vicinity. As the use of the access road was already established for the neighbouring care home and other residences, it was not considered that an additional dwelling would cause a significant increase in use.