West Lindsey District Council PL.12 05/06

Planning Services Committee

21 June 2005

Go to Minute

Subject:	Planning Applications for Determination
Report By:	Director of Planning
Contact Officer:	Michelle Clewes – Gainsborough 01427 676654 michelle.clewes@west-lindsey.gov.uk Ian Dickinson – Gainsborough 01427 676643 ian.dickinson@west-lindsey.gov.uk

Summary:

The report contains details of planning applications that require determination by the committee together with appropriate appendices. Copies of all other related correspondence, consultation responses and letters of representation are available for inspection by arrangement with the case officer. Will members please raise any factual questions with the case officer/team leaders/contact officer prior to the meeting.

Financial Implications:

None.

Personnel Implications:

None.

Environmental Implications:

Soundly based planning decisions will have regard for the environment and therefore should not detract from the environmental quality of any particular area.

Community Safety Implications:

Soundly based planning decisions will have regard for community safety.

Policy Implications:

Soundly based planning decisions will have regard to the Council’s Development Plan policies.

Human Rights Implications:

Each planning application has been assessed to consider Human Rights implications especially with regard to Article 8 – right to respect for private and family life and Protocol 1, Article 1 – protection of property and balancing the public interest and well being of the community with these rights.

Link to Council Priorities:

Statutory services, and in particular the determination of planning applications, is a stated service priority.

Link to Corporate Aims:

It is a stated aim to continuously seek to improve services.

Recommendations:

Each application has a recommendation within the report.

Scheme of delegation report. Application M05/P/0178

BVPI 109b – Minor application – Target 65% in 8 weeks

Development: Remove Condition 11 of Planning Permission M04/P/0945.

at: Hawthorn Avenue, Gainsborough.

Description: This proposal seeks to remove condition 11 of permission M04/P/0945, for residential development of the site. The condition relates to the timing of the provision of the carriageway basecourse etc for the estate road serving the site.

Relevant history:

M04/P/0945- Res. Dev. Granted.

M04/P/1328- Remove Condition 17. Refused.

Representations:

Chairman/Ward member(s):

Chairman: “I think the Condition is also instrumental in setting floor levels for the properties to be built and for fixing the position of the properties. I therefore believe the Condition is reasonable and should stand.”

Cllr Bardsley: The Condition is a standard one, regularly imposed and is appropriate. Committee should determine whether or not it should be removed or varied.

Parish/Town Council/Meeting: Object- existing condition reasonable.

Local residents: None.

LCC Highway: Recommends refusal.

Environment Agency: None.

Archaeology: No objection.

Building Control: No objection.

Others: None.

Relevant policies:

WLLP: G1, H2, H8.

Review: STRAT1, RES6.

Assessment (of representations and policy) and conclusions:

This application seeks to remove Condition 11 of the planning permission granted under M04/P/0945. The condition currently reads as follows:

“No dwelling to which this permission relates shall be commenced unless or until the carriageway basecourse and kerb foundation of the new estate road on which it fronts, is adjacent to or gains access, has been constructed.”

The reason for the condition was as follows:

“To enable the position of the dwellings and associated estate road(s) in the layout to be fixed more accurately in the interests of the proper planning of the area in accordance with Policy G1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan.”

Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act states that only the question of the reasonableness of the condition can be considered in dealing with such applications. If the Planning Authority considers that the condition, as imposed, should stand, then the application should be refused. However, if it is considered that the condition can reasonably be removed, or that different conditions should be imposed, then the application can be granted.

It is considered that the aim of the condition as imposed is reasonable, seeking to ensure that the approved layout is properly implemented, fixing the position of the various plots on the site at an early stage. However, the development should proceed in full accordance with the approved plans anyway, and failure to do so may lead to the possibility of enforcement action to remedy any breach. The reason given for Condition 11 is therefore perhaps superfluous.

Consequently, the condition is not therefore considered to meet the tests set out in Circular 11/95, as it’s justification, as set out in the reasons on the Decision Notice is flawed. As such, a refusal of the application to remove Condition 11 is unlikely to be defensible at appeal. However, accepting its outright removal would leave no remaining phasing element to the development with regard to the construction of the estate road. Clearly, it is reasonable to expect that development will be phased to ensure the timely provision of vehicular access to the approved dwellings to enable initial occupiers to access them. Therefore, it is considered that the imposition of a condition relating to construction of the estate road is necessary to replace Condition 11, as permitted by Section 73.

Accordingly, it is considered that, in allowing the removal of Condition 11, a fresh condition should be imposed to ensure that the carriageway basecourse and kerb foundation of the estate road is constructed in a timely fashion. It is considered that to require this prior to the occupation of any dwelling which fronts, is adjacent to or which gains access from the estate road would meet the tests of reasonableness contained in circular 11/95 and is necessary to be imposed to permit the removal of Condition 11.

In response to the concerns raised by Cllr Theobald regarding setting of floor levels, it should be noted that the approved drawings show details of finished floor levels for all houses to be built on the site. These levels will dictate the surface levels of the road, and this matter can be monitored and controlled accordingly during construction work. The positions of the road and houses, as indicated above, should accord with the approved layout plans, and again, this can be monitored by means of setting out checks once foundations are dug. Deviation from these approved details could lead to a requirement for a fresh planning application and/or enforcement action.

Recommendation: Grant permission subject to the following conditions:-

1. No dwelling approved under planning permission M04/P/0945 shall be occupied unless or until the carriageway basecourse and kerb foundation of the new estate road onto which it fronts, is adjacent to or gains access from, has been constructed in accordance with the details approved under that permission.

Reasons:-

1. To ensure the timely provision of adequate means of vehicular access to the dwellings in the interests of the amenities and convenience of initial and subsequent occupiers of those dwellings.

Notes/Informative

Representees to be notified -

Standard Letter Special Letter Draft enclosed

Prepared by : I. P. Dickinson Date : 20/04/2005 “H” Drive/DCDocs/Delegated decision worksheet / Oct 2003.

M05/P/0512 GAINSBOROUGH NORTH 04/05/2005	RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 257 DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS. THE AVENUE/THE BELT, GAINSBOROUGH (LOCAL PLAN SITE G1). BVPI 109a – Major application – Target 60% in 13 weeks
	For: Barratt Sheffield/Beal Homes
Case Officer	Ian Dickinson Direct Dial 01427 676643 ian.dickinson@west-lindsey.gov.uk
Description (the site, surroundings, and development proposals – including site area, density/ building area as appropriate)	The application site is approximately 8.1 ha of Greenfield land currently used for agricultural purposes. The site is bounded by The Avenue to the west, the Belt Road to the north, fields to the east and houses on Dunster Road to the south. The site rises gently from the southern boundary before dropping away to the north. Substantial hedging wraps around the north east and west boundaries of the site, with a mix of hedges and fences along the southern boundary. There are also some mature trees (mainly oak and beech) dotted around the site boundaries and a group of beech trees in the north west corner, all of which are protected by Preservation Orders. This application is for approval of reserved matters following the grant of outline planning permission in 2003 (M03/P/0200) and the site is allocated for residential use in both the adopted and emerging Local Plan.
Relevant planning history (including on adjoining sites)	M03/P/0200- Outline application for residential development. Granted 29/12/2003.
Representations (statutory consultees, neighbours and information in support of application)	Chairman/Ward member(s) – None received. Town Council – Object. Density is too great. Concerns over increased traffic flow and safety concerns given nearness of school and leisure centre. Walkways to adjoining estate could provide escape route for criminals. Concern over lack of community centre/meeting place in the area- exacerbated by increase in population. Infrastructure concerns- lack of bus service. Local residents – 6 Letters of objection/concern received from occupiers of 1, 3, 5, 7, 15 Dunster Road and 14 Milton Road raising the following issues:- Concern over impact of car parking court on southern boundary. Concern over ownership/maintenance of 6m easement on southern boundary and security implications. Concern over highway and pedestrian safety, especially on The Belt Road. Question the need for affordable housing on the site. Concern over landscaping provision, overall character of development and density. Concern that development will adversely affect privacy and amenity of Dunster Road residents. LCC Highways – No objection subject to conditions. Environment Agency – Surface water discharge to existing Severn Trent system will require attenuation. Archaeology –. No objections. Building Control – No comment. Environmental Health – No comment. English Nature- No objections but recommend advisory notes relating to protected species. Gainsborough IDB- Wish to be consulted on detailed surface water drainage arrangements and wish to restrict discharge into their open watercourse system. Lincolnshire Police Architectural Liaison- Advises that it is desirable to ensure adequate lighting to parking areas and private drives prior to occupation of dwellings. Suggests care is taken over location and size of landscape planting.
Relevant Policies (national, regional, structure plan, local plan and other constraints – AONB, Conservation Area etc.)	West Lindsey Local Plan: G1, H1, H7, H8, H10, ENV12, ENV14, RC10, TR2, TR5. Review: STRAT1, STRAT2, RES1, RES2, RES5, CORE2, CORE10
Assessment (of representations and policy considerations) and conclusions	This is a reserved matters application for residential development on this allocated Local Plan housing site. Outline planning permission was granted in 2003 for residential development without specifying an upper limit on numbers. This proposal is for 257 dwellings, which is higher than the adopted Local Plan and emerging Local Plan envisaged, but which nonetheless represents an overall gross density of some 31 dwellings per hectare. As such it is considered that the density accords with current central government guidance contained in PPG3 and is acceptable. Density of development varies across the site, with generally higher densities towards the middle of the site and extremely low density at the northern edge adjoining the Belt Road, in order to both create a degree of interest and variety in character and to soften the impact of development on the rural character of the Belt Road to the north. A distinctly different character is created on the northern edge of the site where larger detached houses are proposed in generous plots with substantial landscape planting proposed around them. This helps to preserve the rural character of the Belt Road, which is heavily treed on the opposite side of the road, with Gainsborough Golf Course located beyond. Access to the site is proposed primarily from The Avenue, with an estate road serving 245 of the houses. A separate access is proposed off the Belt Road to serve the remaining 12 dwellings. There is no link between these two access roads. Although previously concerns have been raised regarding the suitability of an access onto the Belt Road, extensive discussion with LCC Highways has resulted in agreement that an acceptable access can be achieved with adequate visibility. On this basis, the Highways Officers have indicated that both access points meet the necessary standards and are acceptable. The detailed layout of the site, as noted above, varies in density and utilises a number of different house types to help add interest and character to the scheme. The mix of house types is 7 five-bed, 121 four-bed, 117 three-bed, 6 two-bed and 6 one-bed dwellings. These are variously detached, semi-detached or terraced, with the smaller units being flats/apartments. Car parking is provided in large part in small parking/garage courts to the rear of houses, thus reducing the dominance of parked cars as a feature in the street scene. A substantial area of public open space is proposed in a broadly central location, forming a green avenue, with houses fronting onto it. A formal children’s play area is proposed at the southern end of this open space. Other smaller areas of open space or incidental landscaping are proposed around the site, and the hedgerows on the site boundaries are to be retained at 2- 2.5m height. Heavy landscaping is proposed to be interspersed with the lower density housing at the northern end of the site, softening this edge of the development and limiting views of the site to a certain extent. Due to the topography of the surrounding area, long views of the site are quite limited anyway. On the western boundary adjacent to The Avenue, houses will front onto the road, rather than turn their back on it, but will be generally set back to avoid too urban an appearance. The hedgerow on the western boundary will be retained in large part, with selective removal to facilitate the access road and visibility splays, where replanting will be undertaken behind the splay. A footpath link is proposed to run behind the hedge towards the southern boundary, with a link onto The Avenue at the south west corner. A gas/oil pipeline runs along the southern boundary of the site, and the operator has a 6 metre easement to allow access for maintenance/repair. Consequently, the development stops 6 metres short of the southern boundary, increasing the separation distance to the rear gardens of Dunster Road and effectively leaving a buffer strip. The backs of houses on the site are generally 15 metres away from the boundaries of the rear gardens of Dunster Road properties. This area of land cannot be utilised for any other purpose and it is therefore proposed to leave it as a grassed area with a locked gate giving access onto The Avenue, the keys for which to be held by the pipeline operator. Whilst the concerns of local residents and the Town Council are appreciated, a number of the issues raised are not relevant to this reserved matters application, and seek to revisit the principle of residential development on this scale in this location, which cannot be done on such applications. A material concern has been the potential impact of the parking court serving Plots 109-120 in terms of likely noise and disturbance. In response to these concerns the Applicant has proposed the provision of a 1.8m screen fence with landscape planting on the northern side to help further screen this parking area, particularly with regard to headlights at night and to help reduce noise transmission. Again, the 6 metre easement helps in further separating this parking area from existing properties. Reference is made to the housing on this part of the site being “affordable housing”, which is incorrect. It has been agreed that the Applicant will provide a financial contribution for provision of off-site affordable housing rather than to incorporate on-site provision. This has been secured by means of a Section 106 Legal Agreement, and consequently all of the proposed dwellings are for sale on the open market. In conclusion, it is considered that this detailed scheme complies with the requirements and conditions set out in the outline permission and achieves an appropriate form of residential development on this site. The density is acceptable overall and the open space and landscape planting provision will contribute to the character of the site and help to integrate the development into the locality.
Reasons for granting approval	The application complies with the requirements set out in the outline planning permission and there are no other material planning considerations which indicate that approval of reserved matters should not be granted.
Recommendation	Recommendation: Grant approval subject to the following conditions:- 1. A11 ARM- commencement date. 2. A detailed landscape scheme (including treatment of all areas of public open space) based on the Contextual Study and Landscape Report dated March 2005 by Ian Stubbs Landscape Architect shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority prior to commencement of development. Such scheme to include inter alia, the number, species, heights on planting and positions of all trees. Such scheme as approved by the District Planning Authority shall be carried out in its entirety within 12 months of commencement of development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority). All trees, shrubs and bushes shall be adequately maintained for a period of five years from the date of completion of the scheme and during that period all losses shall be made good as and when necessary. All trees, shrubs and bushes shall thereafter be retained. 3. Prior to commencement of development a scheme for the layout of the play area on the public open space shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Such scheme shall include full details of all play equipment, safety surfaces, seating and boundary treatments and a timetable for its completion. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. NB:- Additional landscape and highways conditions to follow. Reasons: 1. A11. 2. To ensure that the detailed landscaping scheme is carried out satisfactorily in the interests of the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policies G1 and H10 of the West Lindsey Local Plan 1998. 3. To ensure the satisfactory and timely provision of the proposed play area in the interests of the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policies G1 and H10 of the West Lindsey Local Plan 1998. Note to Applicant: Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the conditions contained in the outline planning permission granted under M03/P/0200 as well as those conditions detailed above.

_______________________________________________________________________________

M05/P/0354 GAINSBOROUGH SOUTH WEST 11/04/2005	PLANNING APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH EXISTING PETROL FILLING STATION AND MILK DEPOT (NORTH STREET) AND ERECT 114 APARTMENTS AND RETAIL UNIT, ASSOCIATED PARKING, ACCESS AND LANDSCAPING. LAND BETWEEN NORTH STREET AND CHURCH STREET, GAINSBOROUGH BVPI 109a – Major application – Target 60% in 13 weeks
	For: DCG Developments Ltd. Per: John Halton Design Ltd.
Case Officer	Simon Sharp Direct Dial 01427 676651 simon.sharp@west-lindsey.gov.uk
Description (the site, surroundings, and development proposals – including site area, density/ building area as appropriate)	The application site lies between North Street and Church Street approximately 300 metres north of Gainsborough Town Centre. It includes land fronting on to Church Street and North Street and includes the former Co-Op Filling station and milk depot, the latter still being in use. Gainsborough Trinity Football Club lies to the east including The Blues Club, whilst a mix of shops, dwellinghouses, auctioneers and the vacant Fanny Marshall Institute lie to the west on Church Street. The proposal has been the subject of detailed pre-application discussions and has been amended during the processing of the application. It can be best summarised as including four main elements: Block A: 26 No. flats each with two bedrooms arranged along the Church Street frontage. This block varies in height and includes a number of gables fronting the road, the highest element rising to threes storeys in height and 11 metres above ground level. The primary elevations would face east and west with powder coated aluminium window frames and including bays and oriel window features. The buildings would be faced in brick, with rendered panels and reconstituted stone banding. Block B: 18 No. flats again with two bedrooms, located opposite Acland Street and the Fanny Marshall Institute. The building rises to three and a half storeys in height, the ridge being 14 metres above ground level. The front elevation is asymmetrical with an offset full height bay. There would be a plain rusticated band of reconstituted stone at ground level. This block would feature the same detailing such as powder coated aluminium window frames. Block C: 34 No. flats accommodated within a block that is predominantly four storeys in height with a single room element rising to five storeys. The block is cranked to follow the curvature of North Street and includes a vehicular access passageway through to the communal courtyard in the centre of the development. The building includes a roof garden. The main elevations face east and west. Block D: A four storey building with covered public and private car parking and retails shop on the ground floor with three storeys of flats above (36 units in total). The building would include a central internal atrium with garden terrace. The proposed layout includes 6 No. dedicated car parking spaces for customers of the shop and 114 No. private parking spaces for the proposed flats. 2m railings and gates are proposed at the accesses from Church Street and North Street. The only vehicular access will be from North Street.
Relevant planning history (including on adjoining sites)	Members may recall that a previous proposal for part of the site, involving the development of 42 apartments and town houses was reported to Committee on the 28^th October 2004. Permission was granted subject to 21 conditions. There have been several other previous applications for parts the site relating solely to the previous uses, the most recent of which was: 98/P/0684 Planning application for change of use of part of the retail floor area to A3 hot food takeaway. Granted s/c.
Representations (statutory consultees, neighbours and information in support of application)	Original Plans Chairman/Ward member(s) – no written representations received. Parish/Town Council/Meeting – Gainsborough Town Council – Original plans -“Objects on the grounds that occupancy is far too dense and also has concerns of the height of the building and number of traffic movings. Also concerns raised regarding infrastructure and drainage capability.” Local Residents – Original Plans – Objections received from Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 13, 15, 17, 21, 25, 43 Northolme; Nos. 2, 7, 13 Arkwright Street; No. 27, Charles Street, No.1, Connaught Road, No.1 Morton Terrace, No. 29 Tennyson Street and No. 28 Garfield Street A précis of the objections is summarised below: The structure suggests that the accommodation will be leasehold so who will be responsible for maintenance? Is there a demand for this type of housing? Traffic congestion is already particularly bad on match and auction days and will only be made worse by this high density development. The buildings, specifically on Church Street, are not in keeping with the area. Why cannot the designs on Church Street or Handel Close be proposed instead? The North Street designs represent an ugly, high rise form of architecture, not complimentary to the existing Victorian or older age buildings which are of a height no more than three storeys. The site is between two busy roads. There will be a loss of daylight and privacy to residents of Arkwright Street and Northolme. The junction of Northolme and North Street is already extremely busy and it will only be a matter of time before there is a serious accident. Is it a good idea to have a shop right on the corner? Traditional materials should be used for North Street, not concrete. There are too many flats. Would prefer more traditional houses. Drainage and sewerage may not be adequate for this number of flats. Little local employment; therefore people will need cars to travel to work. Short supply of local services, specifically doctors and dentists. Any comments received with regard to the amended plans will be either copied or reported verbally to Committee. Environment Agency – comments to be reported verbally GPSS pipelines – no comments. Lincolnshire Police – private driveways should be provided with lighting. The landscaping scheme shall ensure that there is a clear field of vision around the development. LCC Archaeology – The site is within the former medieval settlement area of Gainsborough. Gainsborough Old Hall and All Saints Church are nearby and there have been remains of medieval tiles found in the vicinity. Recommends condition. LCC Education – Have reviewed the predicted primary and secondary school spaces and have concluded that there should be sufficient spaces available to accommodate pupils from this site. Therefore, not request an education contribution in this instance. LCC Fire and Rescue – Have been informed of changes to the Co-op Filling Station and once the tanks have been made safe the license will be removed. Severn Trent Water – No objection subject to a condition requiring a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Council prior to development commencing. WLDC Environmental Protection – advise condition requiring contamination report. Transco (gas) – Transco has no objections to the proposal but recommend that the developer of the works contact them directly to discuss their requirements given that a there is a 12” main dissecting the site west to east. WLDC Strategic Housing Officer – Recommend affordability to be achieved in accordance with local plan parameters. WLDC Building Control – Building regulations required, no adverse comments.
Relevant Policies (national, regional, structure plan, local plan and other constraints – AONB, Conservation Area etc.)	Development Plan Lincolnshire County Structure Plan 1981 amended by Alteration No.1 in November 1991 and Alteration No.2 1994. 1A Provision for Residential Development West Lindsey Local Plan 1998: The proposal is located within the Secondary Shopping Zone for Gainsborough. G1 applies as do the following other policies in the Plan, G3. Infrastructure and essential services. ENV4 Contaminated land ENV6 Derelict & under-utilised land S2 Secondary shopping zone. H2. Housing development within settlement limits. H7. The range of housing provision H8 Affordable housing H10 Housing layout and design. E1 Employment provision RC10 Provision of recreation/play space in new residential development. TR5 Highway standards in new developments. TR8 Parking (inc appendix 10) TR9 Car parking within urban centres. It is noted that the site is not in a Conservation Area. No.106 Church Street is listed, but the site is separated from this building by the adjacent land subject to the planning application M04/P/1048 for residential development. Other policies - National Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 3: Housing Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 13: Transport Other policies – Regional Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) 8; East Midlands. Other policies - Local West Lindsey Local Plan First Review Revised Deposit Draft 2004. The site is within the development limit for Gainsborough. It is not within the town centre boundary and part is allocated for residential (G26). Policy STRAT 1. Development requiring planning permission, applies as do the following other policies: STRAT2 – Residential allocations. STRAT19 – Infrastructure Requirements SUS15 – Derelict, under-utilised and previously developed land. RES 1. Housing layout and design. RES2 Range of housing provision. RES6 Affordable housing. CORE1 Vehicle and cycle parking standards CORE2 Highway Development Standards CORE10 Open space and landscaping within developments. CRT2 Standard for open space, play and sport provision. NBE 19 Landfill, contaminated or unstable land. Lincolnshire Design Guide for Residential Areas
Assessment (of representations and policy considerations) and conclusions	Background and Context The application should be considered firstly against the policies of the development plan and then against the Review, and national guidance as other material considerations. The latter are important considerations when assessing the principle and scale of the proposal given that advice on these issues, such as PPG3, has been published since the adoption of both the structure and local plans. However, the West Lindsey Local Plan 1998 is still particularly relevant when assessing the details of the proposal Principle PPG3 encourages residential development on previously developed land in urban sustainable locations close to employment, education and services provision. Indeed such locations are the first that should be considered in the so-called sequential approach to meeting housing land supply. With regard to previously developed land, annex C of PPG3 offers a helpful starting point for this assessment providing the national government definition. It states that such land is “that which is or was occupied by a permanent (non agricultural) structure, and associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition covers the curtilage of the development.” It specifically excludes “land that was previously developed but where the remains of any structure or activity have blended into the landscape in the process of time.” The site clearly falls within this definition. National government is committed to maximising the re-use of previously developed land as stated in PPG3. Paragraph 23 of this guidance states that by 2008, 60% of additional housing should be provided on previously-developed land. Policy ENV6 of the West Lindsey Local Plan 1998, echoed by SUS 15 of the Review, also encourages the utilisation of such land. Policy ENV6 states that planning permission will normally be granted for development proposals which bring derelict and under-utilised land back into acceptable beneficial use. It is noted that the application site is nearly all vacant, except for the milk depot and has been for some time. Furthermore residential development would be a beneficial use in this location and a complimentary, sensitive and sympathetic use to the surroundings. This harmony with other uses is discussed in greater depth later in this report. Furthermore, the importance of regenerating this landmark site, situated on a main route into Gainsborough, cannot be underestimated. Many of the vacant sites in Gainsborough are now benefiting from investment and the redevelopment of this site will be make a significant contribution to the future image and prosperity of the town as a whole. The proposed density is commensurate with that for other residential schemes that have gained the benefit of detailed permission on Northolme and Bridge Street. The emphasis on apartments is a welcome balance against the dwellinghouses being built off Hawthorn Avenue, Foxby Hill and Corringham Road elsewhere in the town. Indeed, this central position is considered to be an ideal location for apartments as outlined below. Sustainability and Vitality The site is situated within walking distance of employment providers, education, retail and other services. Queen Elizabeth High School is less than 10 minutes walk and the primary school is opposite part of the site. There are also shops opposite the site on Church Street and Gainsborough Trinity FC is adjacent to the North Street boundary. The town centre itself is approximately 5 minutes walk offering a range of convenience and comparison shopping. The site is also on the regular, Roadcar No. 351, bus route to the larger centre of Scunthorpe. It also contended that the development will actually contribute to the vitality and viability of the area and such a contribution appears to be required as evidenced by the many shops that have closed in the vicinity. It is acknowledged that customers of the shops and services on Church Street sometimes have difficulty in finding parking (an issue discussed later in the report), but it can be argued that the new apartments will provide welcome custom and importantly these new customers can obviously travel to these shops and services by foot. It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with objectives of sustainability championed by national, regional and local policy, specifically paragraphs 2 and 46 of PPG3 and policies G1, G3 and TR1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan 1998. Access, parking and highway safety Many of the representations received for this application include understandable concerns about highways issues. At the time of the last application it was considered prudent to record the demand for parking at a busy time during one of the auctions late on a Tuesday morning (5^th October 2004). It is accepted that a similar demand may be experienced when Gainsborough Trinity are playing at home. My officer’s records indicate that a maximum of 36 cars were parked on the application site and adjoining private land during that morning. It is accepted that demand for on-street parking on Church Street was high during this period. However, the following facts need to be clarified: The authorised use of the site is not a car park. It would therefore not be appropriate to view the application as involving a loss of public parking. It was recorded that the supply of on-street spaces on Acland Street, Bayard Street and Forster Street, all within 250 metres of the auction premises, exceeded the number of cars parked within the application site. 114 spaces have been made available within the site for future residents. This provision equates to one space per proposed apartment. These spaces are guaranteed to be available to the residents and their visitors given the controlled card access scheme proposed. The site is, as already discussed, in a sustainable location close to public transport nodes, the town centre and other residential areas. There is a public car park on North Street within walking distance of the site, the auction premises and the football ground. This car park had 60% of its spaces available at the time of the auction. This was also market day and therefore a period of high demand for town centre parking. A separate car park is proposed on site for the proposed shop. In light of this information it is considered that the potential impact of the development with regards to parking demand will not be significant. Furthermore, it is suggested that any further, unnecessary off-street parking provision within the site will detract from the aesthetic value of the scheme and the character and appearance of the area. Such a consideration is outlined in policy TR9 of the West Lindsey Local Plan 1998. The access arrangements are considered to be acceptable by the County Highways Authority, subject to conditions. There will be no vehicular access from Church Street. Indeed, the only access points to the development will be on North Street and sufficient distance from the junction with Northolme not to prejudice highway safety. Specifically, there is a main access to private parking for the apartments and a separate small off street car park for the proposed retail shop. Poor driving habits such as parking on the double yellow lines near to the junction of North Street and Northolme are a matter for the police and not the planning authority. Residential Amenity Part (iv) of policy H10 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for residential development unless a proposal is satisfactory with regards to the impact on the amenities of adjoining properties or residents. There are no existing dwellings on North Street near to the site; Gainsborough Trinity FC occupies the frontage opposite the proposed development. The larger elements of the proposal are therefore concentrated on this frontage where there are no immediate residential neighbours and little consequences in terms of loss of light or privacy. Therefore, any potential impact on residential amenity is restricted to future occupiers of the site and the existing residents of Church Street, Northolme and Arkwright Street. However, the nearest dwelling on either Arkwright Street or Northolme is approximately 21 metres from the nearest element of the proposal; Block D. Furthermore, this block is only 11 metres in height. To put this in context, the dwellings being constructed by Kane Developments on Church Street are 12 metres in height, 1 metre higher than Block D. In summary, it is considered that this not an insignificant separation distance and the moderate height of the proposal will not result in a significant loss of light or privacy to existing neighbouring occupiers. The Elm Cottage Public House is not considered to be affected or affect future residents. The main building is approximately 16 metres from the nearest proposed apartment, the space to the south being punctuated by an electricity sub-station. Similarly, the new apartments have been arranged with at least 16 metres separation to the existing buildings on the west side of Church Street. This distance is greater than other existing buildings facing each other further down the street to the south. It is also considered an acceptable distance to ensure no loss of privacy to existing or future residents. Staying with the Church Street frontage, but turning to matters of light, it is acknowledged that the maximum three-and-a –half storey buildings will have some impact on light especially given that the site was levelled. However, it is important to reinforce the streetscape of this road, the layout of which dates from medieval times. It also reasoned that the new buildings are to the east of the existing buildings and therefore the latter will still enjoy an acceptable level of sunlight from midday, especially given the 16 metre gap between buildings and the north-south orientation of the street. Noise and disturbance generated by the previous commercial uses will be reduced by the development, which by its residential nature will not create the same degree of noise levels. However, it is suggested that suitable levels of soundproofing are provided between the proposed apartments. Design, Character and Appearance Part (i) of policy H10 of the adopted local plan states that planning permission will not normally be granted for residential development unless proposals are satisfactory with regard to the nature, scale and density of existing development in the settlement and where appropriate are designed so that the position of new buildings, walls and other features respects and where feasible enhances the settlement street scene and surroundings. The Lincolnshire Residential Design guide elaborates by stating that it of paramount importance that the starting point for the design of new residential development should be the assessment of the character and appearance of the existing buildings, roads, open spaces and landscaping in the vicinity and the extent to which that influence the development. With regard to the Church Street frontage, it is noted that the scale, massing and detailing of the buildings carefully takes its design cues from the surrounding street scene. Nos. 39 to 45 Church Street for example is a nineteenth century, three storey group faced in brick. Further north there is the Fanny Marshall Institute, a building of three, if not four storey stature. Furthermore, the area to the west is predominantly characterised by Victorian terraces. The remaining dwellings and shops on Church Street date from a similar period and many feature gables facing the street. The style, orientation and scale of these buildings is echoed in the proposed frontage and will sit harmoniously within these existing buildings. Indeed, it will serve to enhance the visual appearance of the site and preserve the character and appearance of the area which is undoubtedly an asset to be maintained. The high specification of detailing including walls and railings in lieu of fences is particularly noted and welcomed. Turning to the North Street frontage, it is noted that the applicant has proposed a post-modern approach for this frontage which represents a departure from the approach taken elsewhere in the site. Flat roofs are particularly evident. However, the following comments can be made in response to the representations received from neighbours and members of the public: The facing materials do not actually differ from those proposed in the other areas of the scheme. Specifically, negative comments have been received about the assumed use of concrete. However, the facing materials are actually predominantly brick, with rendered panels and reconstituted stone bands to offer relief. Indeed the surfaces and materials proposed echo the guidance given in chapter 4 of the Lincolnshire Residential Design Guide. Flat roofs are not uncommon in Gainsborough and should not be rejected per se. Indeed, they have been as much a part of the street scene as gabled roofs. The gas holders, football stands and petrol station canopies all have, or had flat roofs. The design provides a much needed frontage to North Street, establishing a built form which reinforces the medieval street plan in this area. Furthermore, the development is canted to replicate the curvature of North Street, thereby sitting harmoniously within the street rather than being at odds with this established layout. The progression through Gainsborough should be a series of journeys along linear spaces punctuated by landmarks and spaces which provide identity to a specific end location and focal points. In this instance the centre of the frontage includes a taller element on the outside of the curve which can be viewed from the south and north. This building responds to the opportunities provided by the site given the considerable distance from existing residential properties. The forms and details echo traditional features which are evident in the wider area; a covered arch forming a gateway to a semi-private courtyard at the rear, projections to form pinch points which add interest and avoid a monotonous linear form. Development should not only reflect the form and grain of the existing street scene but also be legible by the causal observer. Modern, and more traditional forms can live side by side in harmony if, as in this case, the scale, proportioning and detailing are right. With regards to the layout, it is noted that the hierarchy of public, semi-private and private space within the development is clearly evident. The inner courtyard is completely enclosed and the access provides a defined narrow gateway to progress from public to semi-private space. The detailing of this space has been the subject of many pre-application discussions and will ensure that residents can claim ownership of this space for private parking and recreation in an informal setting. The proposed fenestration will provide a high degree of security to the site, whilst the floor plan arrangements will allow for visitors to contact occupiers from public areas. Contaminated Land The previous uses have inevitably generated some contamination within the site. Preliminary investigations indicate that levels in the areas other than the former Co-op Petrol Station are not as significant so as to withhold the grant of planning permission. The Council Environmental Protection Officer has recommended that further investigations and remediation strategies and procedures can be controlled via condition. However, investigations are ongoing with regard to the petrol station as site access was not possible before the premises closed for business at the end of May. The outcome of these investigations and response by the Environment Agency and the Council will be reported verbally to Members at Committee. It is recommended that if these matters have not been adequately addressed at the time of consideration, then permission should be refused on these grounds. Affordability Affordable housing may be defined as housing of all types of tenure which is provided and maintained below market rates to those defined as in need of such accommodation. It is considered reasonable to tie the occupancy of some of the proposed dwellings to being “affordable”. It is considered such a restriction can be ensured through the imposition of a condition. Policy H7 of the West Lindsey Local Plan 1998 encourages a range of housing and it is considered reasonable that the site should also include dwellings which are restricted to occupancy by people defined by the Council as in need of affordable housing. Drainage Details to ensure adequate drainage of the site can be required via the imposition of a condition. However, given the former use of the site and its associated discharge levels, it is considered that, in principle, a scheme can be devised to respond to the demands of the number of dwelling proposed. It is noted that the Environment Agency, Severn Trent Water and the Drainage Board do not have an objection in principle to the development. It is also observed that the majority of the site is surfaced in continuous concrete and metalled surfaces which are not conducive to adequately draining the site of surface water. The development provides the opportunity to improve the site capabilities in this regard. Other material considerations It is considered that the proposal accords with other material considerations, all outlined in policy H10 of the development plan. There are no important site features worthy of retention, and the footprints and plot layout indicate that sufficient internal and external space would be provided for future occupiers. The County Archaeologist has indicated that there are likely to be medieval remains on site but a condition requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological works will be appropriate to respond to this consideration in this case. Conclusion I have had regard to the provisions of the West Lindsey Local Plan 1998, national guidance and all other material considerations. These other considerations including PPG3 support a favourable assessment of the proposal. In light of this, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable subject to conditions.
Recommendation	Planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. A1. 2. A scheme for the laying out and construction of the public open space shown on the approved plans (Drawing No. 25/0097/102/A), including full details of planting, fencing, seating, and a timetable for completion of such works shall be submitted prior to the commencement of development. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 3. A landscape management scheme for the area of public open space referred to in Condition No.2 above shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority prior to the occupation of any dwelling on the site. Such scheme shall include management responsibilities and maintenance schedules. The management plan shall be carried out as approved. 4. HP1 North Street (Highways) 5. HP19 JH1037-37 dated March 2005 (Highways) 6. HP24 (Highways) 7. HP25 (Highways) 8. HP26 (Highways) 9. DR1 #3 (foul and surface water disposal) 10. CL1 (contaminated land) 11. No development shall be commenced until the following details have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority: a) the type and nature of the affordable housing provision to be made within the site. b) Arrangements to ensure that the dwellings are affordable for both initial and subsequent occupiers. c) The occupancy criteria to be used for determining the identity of prospective and successive occupiers of the affordable housing and the means by which such occupancy criteria shall be enforced. 12. L2 (landscaping) 13. L6 (boundary treatment) 14. No development shall take place within the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, to include an evaluative phase, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 15. No development shall take place until a scheme for the noise insulation of the apartments has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained. 16. M1 (materials) 17. Z4 plans received 27^th May 2005 Reasons: 1. A1 2. To ensure the provision of a suitable area of public open space in accordance with the requirements of Policies G1, RC10 and H10 of the adopted West Lindsey Local Plan. 3. To ensure a satisfactory standard of maintenance for the area of public open space and to accord with policies G1, RC10 and H10 of the West Lindsey Local Plan 1998. 4. HR1 and in accordance with policies G1 and TR9 of the West Lindsey Local plan 1998. 5. HR3 and in accordance with policies G1 and TR9 of the West Lindsey Local plan 1998. 6. HR4 and in accordance with policies G1 and TR9 of the West Lindsey Local plan 1998. 7. HR3 and in accordance with policies G1 and TR9 of the West Lindsey Local plan 1998. 8. HR1 and in accordance with policies G1 and TR9 of the West Lindsey Local plan 1998. 9. DR1 and to accord with policy G1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan 1998. 10. CL1 and to accord with policies G1 and ENV4 of the West Lindsey Local Plan 1998. 11. To ensure the satisfactory provision of affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of Policy H8 of the adopted Local Plan. 12. L2 and to accord with policies G1 and H10 of the West Lindsey Local Plan 1998. 13. L6 and to accord with policies G1 and H10 of the West Lindsey Local Plan 1998. 14. AR4 15. To minimise the disturbance by noise of future residential occupiers of the development herby permitted and its effect on neighbouring residents and to accord with policies G1 and H10 of the West Lindsey Local Plan 1998. 16. M1 and to accord with policies G1 and H10 of the West Lindsey Local Plan 1998. 17. Z4 Informatives 1. The highway improvement works referred to in the above conditions are required to be carried out by means of an Agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 between the County Council as Highway Authority and the landowner. 2. It is County Council policy to carry out the detailed engineering design and supervision of Section 278 works and the subsequent preparation of tender/contract documents (subject to workload constraints). Please contact Stuart Freeman at the County Council for further information (Tel 01522 553113). 3. It is recommended that Dr Beryl Lott (01522 553074) is contacted prior to preparing to discharge condition 18.

_______________________________________________________________________________

M04/P/1215 STOW 18/10/04	ERECTION OF FOUR DWELLINGS WITH GARAGES. THE OLD RECTORY, STURTON BY STOW BVPI 109b – Minor application – Target 65% in 8 weeks
	For: The Sullivan Group Per: Fining Associates, Architects and Interior Designers, 3 The Crescent, York, YO24 1AW
Case Officer	Adrian Broome Direct Dial 01427 676662 adrian.broome@west-lindsey.gov.uk
Description (the site, surroundings, and development proposals – including site area, density/ building area as appropriate)	The site is the land on the south side of the driveway leading from Stow Road to The Old Rectory, next to (but not including) a bungalow on Stow Road, which according to the plan is to be demolished. The land is open with a high hedge separating it from the modern housing to the south (The Glebe) and a mixture of hedges and fences on the north side of the driveway, beyond which there is more recent housing (Old Rectory Gardens). The driveway is to be improved with a view also to serving other potential development at The Old Rectory itself but there are no current applications for this. Some trees adjoining the site near to the road frontage and others close to the site boundaries are covered by a TPO. There are to be three 5-bedroom houses and one 4-bedroom house, all of traditional design. This application has been amended by being reduced from six dwellings on a larger site (which included the land on which the bungalow currently stands) to the current scheme for four on the smaller area described above. There have also been other minor alterations to the house and garage positions and the plan now shows the position of adjoining properties.
Relevant planning history (including on adjoining sites)	Outline permission granted for 3 dwellings on this land in 2000 and detailed approval in 2003. Earlier applications to develop the Old Rectory itself and land around it were withdrawn in 2004.
Representations (statutory consultees, neighbours and information in support of application)	Chairman/Ward member – None received. Parish Council – Object because the site is in a de-allocated area; there are too many units for the site; bungalows would be better suited; properties on The Glebe will be overlooked; there are too many properties served by a private drive; drainage systems will be overloaded; access is unsuitable for the increased traffic; scope for widening the driveway is limited by the number of accesses and protected trees nearby; preservation of the listed building is essential; and noise levels could increase. Local residents – Several letters were received (some in the earlier context of a more extensive development proposal including the Old Rectory itself and its grounds, the application for which was subsequently withdrawn: in those cases the representations have been modified accordingly in this summary). In addition letters have been received from the Old Rectory Gardens Residents’ Group, also signed on behalf of some of the people who have written individually (because, as they point out, they are affected differently depending on their own circumstances) as well as by others who have not written separately. These letters, individually and from the Residents’ Group, contain objections or express concerns on the grounds that the (original) plan does not show the adjoining properties in Old Rectory Gardens or The Glebe; the emerging review of the local plan does not allow any more new building in the village; the sewerage system in the village cannot cope with more development; existing hedges on the boundaries need to be retained to maintain privacy; privacy has already been affected by the felling of trees on the site; access improvements are necessary to accommodate the extra traffic and reduce safety hazards - this aspect is restricted by the presence of protected trees; the school is over-subscribed and has no room to expand, and traffic creates parking problems and safety hazards in this part of the village at school starting and leaving times; the increased traffic will be a source of noise and pollution; there will be a loss of privacy from overlooking; as well as the school the local health services in the village are at or approaching capacity; some residents will lose views of the countryside; there will be an adverse effect on the natural environment and the character of the area and the setting of The Old Rectory itself; overcrowding the site with too many buildings; querying the intention to demolish the bungalow which implies there will be new development there too in due course; and saying that the application should not be considered in isolation from proposals for the adjoining land, which raise the same issues. LCC Highways – Advise conditions relating to access design, parking and turning. LCC Education – Request a financial contribution to help mitigate the impact on the local schools (primary and secondary). Environment Agency – Not applicable. Upper Witham IDB – No objections as the developer has agreed a appropriate contribution to the Board in relation to the cost of a drainage improvement scheme Archaeology – No objections Building Control – No objections. Environmental Health – Offer advice about site management during construction and potential ground contamination.
Relevant Policies (national, regional, structure plan, local plan and other constraints – AONB, Conservation Area etc.)	West Lindsey Local Plan: G1 General policy H2 Location of new housing H10 Housing layout and design SA6 Setting of listed buildings Review STRAT 1 General policy relating to all development STRAT 7 Windfall housing in subsidiary rural settlements RES 1 Housing layout and design NBE 3 Listed buildings
Assessment (of representations and policy considerations) and conclusions	The principle of residential development here has been addressed already by the earlier permission and approval, which allow three houses to be built. On that basis the main issue is whether or not the additional house now being proposed should be regarded as prejudicial to the emerging planning strategy for the location of new housing, given that Sturton is a subsidiary rural settlement, and if not, whether the details of the development are acceptable in terms of the impact on the local environment. Advice from the Forward Plans team is that one additional dwelling on this site should not be opposed on strategic grounds, based mainly on the extant permission for three houses (which means the site can be developed anyway) and that increasing this by an additional one is not something to warrant concern over the total windfall allowance for the rural area. Accepting this advice and looking at the detailed merits of the proposal, the impact of the development will be little different from that of the approved scheme for the site. Many of the matters raised by the parish council and in the local representations refer to the principle of building here at all, although some people do say t that there are no objections to a lower density – the three dwellings already approved, especially if they were bungalows, for example. But any building here will alter the character of the site from its present state and affect the setting of The Old Rectory to some degree. In this last respect the amendments to the plan include setting the house on plot 4 nearest to the Old Rectory at an angle so that it is in the same position and orientation as the house which was approved there before. As a consequence the effect on the listed building is unchanged from previously. The Old Rectory is not part of the street scene but it is visible from within the site on the approach driveway and from surrounding housing. It is this existing housing, if anything, which has compromised its setting in the past. Highways are content that the improvements to the access included in the application are acceptable and that the extra dwelling does not give rise to grounds to refuse for road safety reasons. Boundary hedges and the protected trees are to be retained and supplementary landscaping carried out. This, together with the distances between the development and the existing properties is adequate to ensure a reasonable level of privacy is retained. On the amended plan the arrangement of the houses and garages has been altered and the site extended by a couple of metres or so to increase the space between and around the houses. Their design and external appearance follows local design guidance. Finally, the developer is prepared to enter into a legal agreement to provide for the payment of a commuted sum at the request of the Education Authority.
Reasons for granting permission	The proposal is acceptable in terms of its impact on the local environment and the living conditions of neighbouring properties and will not prejudice the strategy for the location of new housing in the emerging local plan.
Recommendation	Subject first to the completion of an agreement under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 providing for a financial contribution to the local education authority in the terms specified by that authority, the Director of Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:- 1. A.1 2. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the amended site layout plan number 430.003 revision F dated 26^th May 2005 unless the local planning authority gives written approval for any subsequent variation. 3. No development shall take place until details of the means to protect all trees and boundary hedges on the site during the construction period have been agreed in writing by the local planning authority following which the agreed measures shall be put in place before development commences and retained until completion. 4. No other development shall take place until the alterations to the junction of the access driveway with Stow Road have been completed, less the final wearing course of the driveway, up to a point level with the western boundary of plot one. 5. None of the dwellings shall be occupied before the access driveway leading to it and the individual parking and turning area serving it have been completed. 6. No development shall take place until details of the external facing and roofing materials have been agreed in writing by the local planning authority and only the agreed materials shall be used. 7. L.2 (Landscaping) Reasons: 1. A.1 2. To define the terms of the permission for the avoidance of doubt and to ensure an acceptable standard of layout in accordance with policy G1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan. 3. To protect the trees and hedges during construction in accordance with policy G1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan. 4. To ensure safe and adequate access in accordance with policy G1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan. 5. To ensure safe and adequate access in accordance with policy G1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan. 6. To ensure materials appropriate to the locality are used in accordance with policy G1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan. 7. L.2….. in accordance with policy G1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan.

_______________________________________________________________________________

M05/P/0302 MIDDLE RASEN 4/4/05	PLANNING APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT DWELLING SKINNERS LANE, MARKET RASEN BVPI 109b – Minor application – Target 65% in 8 weeks
	Applicant: Mr & Mrs Whall, Old Rectory, Church Lane, Bradley, NE Lincs. DN37 0AE Agent: Hodson Architects, 28 Chantry Lane, Grimsby, DN31 2LJ
Case Officer	Miss Hazel Purser Direct Dial 01427 676674 hazel.purser@west-lindsey.gov.uk
Description (the site, surroundings, and development proposals – including site area, density/ building area as appropriate)	The site lies in the open countryside to the north of Market Rasen. The existing dwelling is a modest wooden pre-fabricated property set amidst the Skinners Lane Plantation woodland which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The proposal utilises the existing access and only relates to the land used previously as domestic curtilage. The proposal is to demolish the existing dwelling and to replace this dwelling with a new house. The existing dwelling is single storey and of timber construction with a corrugated sheet roof. It is set centrally within the wood approximately 23m from the southern boundary. The basic floor plan of the dwelling is an offset ‘L’ shape, but some additional storage was provided by a small outbuilding to the southwest of the main dwelling. It is currently unoccupied.
Relevant planning history (including on adjoining sites)	M02/P/0039-PA to erect replacement dwelling-GCC
Representations (statutory consultees, neighbours and information in support of application)	Ward Member(s): Cllr Fenwick: After carefully reading your scheme of delegation report and having another look around the site I have decided to disagree with your recommendation of refusal. Your two principle concerns are.... (1)  The size of the building and its effect on the "appearance and character of the surrounding countryside" (2)  The harm to protected trees and the "detriment of the visual amenity of the area" · I would have thought that granting permission with an additional condition that some additional tree planting take place to protect the appearance/visual amenity of the area would result in a decision which is acceptable to all, the applicant and all 'neighbours' - such as there are any. If more than the one tree is cut down the condition would be that new trees are planted, specifying the number, species, age and location for the new trees. · Fundamentally I disagree with the assertions made about the visual impact of the application; I do not think that anybody would object if permission was granted. · I assume that my comments will result in the application going to committee. Parish Council: No objections. Comment that this is “an excellent proposal” Local Residents: Letters of support received via applicant from: Mr Baker, Caistor Road, Market Rasen Gillian Clarey, Willow Lodge, Skinners Lane, Middle Rasen Mr & Mrs Hildred, Oak Farmhouse, Skinners Lane, Middle Rasen Harry Millar, Someday, Caistor Road, Market Rasen Trevor Reed, Fox Covert Lodge, Market Rasen No objections LCC Highways: No observations. LCC Archaeology: No comments. Conservation Section: Planning Technicians: Concerns expressed regarding the location of the garage and dwelling and the impact that the positioning would have upon the health of the protected trees. Building Control: Building Regulations are required, but no adverse comments.
Relevant Policies (national, regional, structure plan, local plan and other constraints – AONB, Conservation Area etc.)	Adopted West Lindsey Local Plan G1: General C1: Development in the countryside C2: Development in the countryside H5: Replacement dwellings in the countryside H10: Layout and design Emerging West Lindsey Local Plan First Review - Revised Deposit Draft 2004 STRAT1: General STRAT12: Development in the open countryside RES1: Layout and design RES8: Replacement dwellings in the open countryside National Guidance PPG3: Housing PPS7: Sustainable development in rural areas
Assessment (of representations and policy considerations)	There is an existing permission on the site that was granted in 2002 for a replacement dwelling and the principle of a replacement dwelling on the site was accepted at that time. However, it is not just the principle of replacement that policy requires must be looked at in the assessment of the proposal. The size and scale of the proposed dwelling in relation to the existing dwelling and the impact of the dwelling upon the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside are considered to be the main issues in this case. Policy H5 of the adopted local plan requires that the “new dwelling is similar in size and scale to that being replaced” and policy RES8 of the emerging local plan requires that the “size of the new building is similar to or smaller than that of the dwelling to be replaced” in order to ensure that an overall housing mix is maintained within the district and to recognise the role that smaller properties play. Whilst policy RES8 has not been formally adopted it is based upon the national guidance of PPG3 and PPS7 which have been published since the adoption of the West Lindsey Local Plan in 1998 and it should be noted that no objections were received to the specific details of this policy. It is therefore considered that policy RES8 is a material consideration within the determination of this application. The principle of the need for a replacement dwelling on this site was established by the previous application. The dwelling granted consent at that time was a single storey brick and pantile dwelling set approximately 18m from the southern boundary, but with a small sun lounge projection coming to nearly 14m from the south boundary. The basic floor plan of the proposal is a ‘T’ shape with a double garage attached to the northern projection. The size of the replacement dwelling took into account the additional accommodation that could be provided through permitted development in the form of extensions to the existing dwelling and the requirements of policy H6 in the extension of the existing property. Because this additional accommodation had been provided within the replacement dwelling permitted development rights for further extensions were removed by condition. Whilst one tree was proposed to be removed as part of this application an additional landscaping strip was also provided to the south side of the southern boundary. The proposed dwelling the subject of this application is of a 1 ½ storey design with facing materials of cedar cladding, brickwork and slate to the roof. The floor plan proposed is on an ‘H’ plan consisting of two gabled wings connected by link with a lower ridge line than the main wings. A detached double car port is also provided to the north of the dwelling. One of the gabled wings is located approximately 5m from the southern boundary and the other is further back but still only 10m from this boundary. The existing dwelling is clearly visible from the south across the fields even although there are trees along the southern boundary, but it is not obtrusive within the landscape because it is set centrally in the plot and it is of a single storey form. In the case of the previously approved dwelling again this is set centrally on the plot and is of a single storey design with additional planting provided to the south. As such it was not considered that the previously approved replacement dwelling would be obtrusive within the landscape. However, in the case of the dwelling subject of this application it is considered that the increased height of the proposed dwelling combined with its length and depth would produce a dwelling of significantly greater mass than the existing dwelling and that fails to reflect the size and scale of the existing property. Furthermore, the position of this building on the plot would result in the dwelling being significantly more prominent within the landscape as viewed from the south. The position also fails to allow space within the curtilage of the dwelling for supplementary planting to mitigate against this and no additional planting within the field to the south is proposed in this application as was offered previously with the 2002 application. Calculations of the existing, approved and proposed floor areas and volumes has been carried out to help in the assessment of the size and scale of the development in relation to Moorby. The figures shown are approximate calculated from the information available. The results are shown below: Existing (Moorby): Floor Area = 82m² Volume = 229m³ Approved (M02/P/0039): Floor Area = 175m² Volume = 692m³ Proposed: Floor Area = 412m² Volume = 1050m³ Whilst it is appreciated that the floor plan of the previously approved dwelling was greater than the existing dwelling the accommodation offered was still modest in scale having only three bedrooms (the third of which is 2.4m x 3.4m). With this particular proposal the accommodation offered within the proposed dwelling is 2.35 times greater than that approved previously and 5 times greater than the accommodation offered by existing dwelling. The proposed dwelling has accommodation at a first floor level and four double bedrooms, the smallest of which has a floor area of 3.5m x 4m. The fact that the actual floor area (which is allowed for in the above calculations) of the rooms is reduced by having areas of double height does not assist in reducing the size and scale of the dwelling further adds to the mass of the building, but the Agent clearly considers this to be necessary for the integrity of the design. Furthermore the volumes show that the proposed dwelling’s volume is 4.6 times greater than the existing property which is also 1.5 times greater than the volume of the approved. It is therefore concluded that the proposed dwelling is not of a similar size or scale to the existing property as required by the policies of the development plan. With regard to the design of the proposed dwelling policy RES8 requires that the “new building is of a design which is built in a similar scale, mass, materials and architectural details to the vernacular character of dwellings in the locality”. The existing property on site is not of vernacular design and is not located near to other residential properties. The proposed dwelling is of a modern architectural style that draws upon some traditional elements with modern use of fenestration and materials. It is not considered that the proposed design conflicts with the requirements of this policy. With regard to the impact upon the protected trees comment upon the impact of the approved scheme was discussed above; however this proposal has a greater impact upon the protected trees due to the position of the dwelling and garage and does not offer the additional landscape planting to the south as provided by M02/P/0039. There are two areas of concern. Firstly the garage is positioned beneath the canopies of 4 protected trees and would most likely result in the need to cut through roots and/or the canopies to the extent that the proposal could affect the health of at least one protected tree leading to reduced stability and a decline in health, possibly leading to death in its current form. The second is the 1 ½ storey gable to the family room which will again result in the need to cut into the canopy of at least one protected tree. As this is a very sensitive boundary and no additional planting is included within the proposal it is considered that works that would affect the health of a tree along this boundary would be unacceptable. It is also considered that future occupants of the property would likely to be concerned about the proximity of the trees to their property. As such the trees would be likely to become under pressure from a householder for works of pruning/felling that would have a detrimental impact upon the protected trees and the screening/amenity that these protected trees provide. There is no requirement for the development to be built this closely to the protected trees in what is considered to be a prominent part of the site. It is therefore considered that the proposal fails to have satisfactory regard to the safeguarding of the protected trees within the site as required by policy G1 and in the interests of the character of the area as required by policy H10 of the adopted local plan, as supported by policies STRAT1 and RES1 of the emerging local plan.
Conclusions	It is considered that the proposal by virtue of its size, scale and position on the plot would have a detrimental impact upon the character of the countryside and would fail to protect or safeguard the welfare of the protected trees on the site without justification and as such fails to accord with the requirements of the relevant policies of the adopted West Lindsey Local Plan, the emerging local plan and national guidance.
Recommendation	Refuse for the following reasons:- 1. Policy H5 of the adopted local plan requires that the “new dwelling is similar in size and scale to that being replaced” and policy RES8 of the emerging local plan requires that the “size of the new building is similar to or smaller than that of the dwelling to be replaced”. It is considered that the height of the proposed dwelling combined with its length and depth will produce a dwelling of significantly greater mass than the existing dwelling. The dwelling also has a significantly greater volume and floor area of residential accommodation on two levels than the existing property. The position of this building on the plot combined with its mass would result in the dwelling being prominent within the landscape as viewed from the south. The combination of these factors are considered to result in a proposal that fails to reflect the size and scale of the existing property and that siting of a building of this size and scale in the proposed position would detract from the appearance and character of the surrounding countryside contrary to policies G1 and H5 of the West Lindsey Local Plan and policies STRAT1 and RES8 of the emerging local plan. 2. Policies G1 and H10 of the West Lindsey Local Plan and STRAT1 and RES1 of the emerging local plan require that existing trees are retained and safeguarded as part of the development. It is however considered that that the siting of the proposed buildings would result in works that could harm the health of the protected trees and would fail to safeguard the long term welfare of the protected trees without justification. This would be to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area and contrary to the requirements of policies G1 and H10 of the West Lindsey Local Plan and also policies STRAT1 and RES1 of the emerging Review of the Local Plan.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Member Scheme of Delegation Report

APPLICATION REFERENCE: M05/P/0384

Development: Planning Application to demolish existing dwelling and erect replacement dwelling (resubmission of M04/P/1306)

At: Grapha Farm, Caistor Road, Market Rasen

BVPI 109b – Minor application – Target 65% in 8 weeks

Description:

The existing dwelling is an early 18^th centuary farmhouse set on raised land to the east of the main A46 Caistor Road to the north of Market Rasen within the open countryside. Extensive pre-application discussions have been held with the applicants and the Conservation Section following the previous refusal of consent for a replacement dwelling on this site.

Relevant History:

M04/WE/0204-Written Enquiry requesting advice upon the replacement of the dwelling

M04/P/1306-PA to demolish existing dwelling and erect replacement dwelling-R (a copy is enclosed at appendix 3)

Representations:

Ward Member(s):

Cllr Fenwick: Agrees with issue of decision as per officer report.

Cllr Theobald: I think it important that this application go before committee in order to ensure transparency in the process that permits the demolition of a local historic building.

Parish Council: Observe that the majority are opposed to demolition, but if it must be demolished at least use some of old bricks for new house construction.

Local Residents:

Mr C Padley, Hambleton Cottage, Walesby Road, Market Rasen

• Objects to demolition and replacement of this dwelling
• Existing property is an old, pretty and historically important house in this location, which considers is capable of refurbishment

LCC Highways: No observations.

LCC Archaeology: The building is a good example of historic vernacular architecture and I would recommend that the developer be required to commission a historic building survey prior to any development on the site. This should be secured by an appropriate condition attached to any planning consent to record historic fabric prior to demolition or alteration. Please ask the developer to contact this office for further details.

Conservation Section: The plans submitted are as discussed during post-application meetings and providing conditions are attached regarding materials it is considered that the replacement of this property is acceptable, if regrettable.

Building Control: Building Regulations are required, but no adverse comments.

Relevant Policies:

Adopted West Lindsey Local Plan

G1: General

SA7: Development affecting buildings of local interest

C1: Development in the countryside

H5: Replacement dwellings in the open countryside

H10: Layout and design

Emerging West Lindsey Local Plan First Review - Revised Deposit Draft 2004

STRAT1: General

STRAT12: Development in the open countryside

RES1: Layout and design

RES8: Replacement dwellings in the open countryside

NBE6: Development affecting buildings of local interest

National Guidance

PPG3: Housing

PPS7: Sustainable development in rural areas

Assessment (of representations and policy)

This application seeks to overcome the previous reasons for refusal on application M04/P/1306 which were with regard to the design and scale of the replacement dwelling and the incorporation of agricultural land into the application site without justification.

The site lies in the open countryside to the east of Caistor Road. The existing dwelling is set up a rise from the road in open charactered farmland. To the front and side of the house (south and east) is the garden and orchard to the property which are clearly delineated by mature hawthorn hedges. To the rear of the house is the yard with farm outbuildings to the north west. The house is approached via a straight driveway from the road which crosses a field to the west of the dwelling.

The Principle of Replacement

The application in November 2004 was made following detailed discussions on the principle of replacing the dwelling (please refer to appendix 1 and to view a copy of a briefing note upon the applicant’s structural survey and the subsequent structure survey report carried out on behalf of the Council can be viewed along with the files in the members room). I now quote from the report upon the previous application:

“It is understood that the farmhouse and its outbuildings were sold off last year. Many enquiries were received by this office at that time about the potential replacement of the dwelling and all were advised of the requirements of the development plan. The applicants entered into pre-application negotiations earlier this year see Ref: M04/WE/0204 and both DC and Conservation Sections were involved in the advice given. The initial proposed design submitted was inappropriate and concern was expressed that the building appeared to be in a reasonable state of repair. A meeting was arranged to advise upon design matters and the applicant was asked to provide a structural survey upon the condition of the structure. Certain points were not covered in the applicant’s structural report and such was the concern about the loss of such an historic property an independent report was also commissioned by the Council. Both reports showed clearly that the property was experiencing significant structural problems that could not be practically dealt with by remedial works and the principle of replacement was agreed as an option with the applicant.”

It is considered that the building is of local interest, but the extent of the structural problems within the property are considered to be such that it would be unreasonable to require its retention (see Conservation Officer’s comments at appendix 2). The principle of replacing the dwelling was accepted in the previous application because this was not a reason for refusal of application M04/P/1306 (a copy of the decision notice can be found at appendix 3) and there have been no changes in circumstance since that time which would alter this conclusion.

A condition, as requested by the County Archaeologist, requiring an archaeological survey of the building is fully supported and should be attached to any consent. It is also considered that the materials of the existing dwelling should be reclaimed in accordance with a scheme to be approved in writing with the District Planning Authority.

Size and Scale

The size and scale of the proposed dwelling in relation to the existing dwelling and the impact of the dwelling upon the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside are of great importance in this case and were previous reasons for refusal. Policy H5 of the adopted local plan requires that the “new dwelling is similar in size and scale to that being replaced” and policy RES8 of the emerging local plan requires that the “size of the new building is similar to or smaller than that of the dwelling to be replaced” in order to ensure that an overall housing mix is maintained within the district and to recognise the role that smaller properties play. Whilst policy RES8 has not been formally adopted it is based upon the national guidance of PPG3 and PPS7 which have been published since the adoption of the West Lindsey Local Plan in 1998 and it should be noted that no objections were received to the specific details of this policy. It is therefore considered that policy RES8 is a material consideration within the determination of this application.

Detailed pre-application discussions followed the previous refusal of consent and notes of those discussions can be found at appendix 4. The main dwelling in this application is 13.94m long x 6.96m wide as compared to the existing dwelling which is 12.6m long x 5.2m wide and the previously refused dwelling was proposed as 17.65m long x 6.6m wide. The additional 5m in length was considered to be excessive and failed to reflect the form of the existing property to the detriment of the character of the area and this was a reason for the refusal of M04/P/1306. It is considered that the reduced length of the property allows for appropriate fenestration detailing and that the resulting dwelling would respect the form of the existing property. As such it is considered that the proposed dwelling accords with the requirements of policies H5 and RES8.

The size of the proposed replacement dwelling takes into account the additional accommodation that could be provided through permitted development in the form of extensions to the existing dwelling and the requirements of policy H6 in the extension of the existing property. This accommodation is provided in the form of three different elements. These are a 1 ½ storey rear wing and two single storey extensions to form a utility area and a sunroom. It is considered that these additions are subordinate to the main dwelling and as such accord with the requirements of policy H6. Because this additional accommodation has been incorporated into the replacement dwelling permitted development rights for further extensions should be removed by condition.

Design and Detailing

Since the previous refusal the detailed discussions between the applicants and officers (including the Conservation Section) are considered to have resulted in a proposal appropriate in this case. The main dwelling as existing is of vernacular form and detail. The proposed dwelling strongly reflects the characteristics and style of the existing property and the Conservation Section are fully satisfied that the design of the replacement is appropriate. It is considered that permitted development rights for the insertion of windows or alterations to the roof as well as other development that would ordinarily be permitted under parts 1 and 2 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and would affect the character of the building should be removed in the interests of the amenity of the locality.

Obviously conditions are also required on any consent regarding the materials and details of the dwelling. The reclaiming of the bricks of the existing property for use in the proposed has been considered, but the percentage that are spalled is considered to high for this to be a practical option and because the size of the bricks is would not match with any available today and it would be highly unlikely to find a matching brick from a site elsewhere. The Conservation Section have been discussing bricks that would match those of the existing property in texture, colour and finish and have come up with several suitable matches. It is for this reason that it is considered that the materials from the existing should be reclaimed but do not have to be re-used in the erection of the proposed dwelling. The suggested conditions therefore relate to:

· Provision of sample panels of brickwork and mortar for approval.

· Provision of samples of clay pantiles for approval.

· Provision of joinery details for approval with painted finish.

· Black rainwater goods with the guttering secured on rise and fall brackets.

Residential Curtilage

The application site now only incorporates the access, the house and its garden. It is therefore considered that the first reason for refusal on application M04/P/1306 has been overcome and for clarity it is suggested that a condition is attached to any consent to ensure that only this area is used as domestic curtilage.

Other Matters

With regard to boundary treatments the existing hedges should be retained as currently through condition to ensure that the character of the garden area is maintained in the interests of the visual amenities if the area.

Conclusions:

It is considered that the proposal, subject to the suggested conditions, is justified and would not have a detrimental impact upon the character or amenities of the landscape or locality and as such accords with the requirements of the relevant policies of the adopted West Lindsey Local Plan, the emerging local plan and national guidance.

Recommendation: Grant with the following conditions/reasons :-

Conditions:

1. A1

2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a scheme for the recording of this historic building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

3. L5-The existing hedges to the south, east and west boundaries of the garden area shall be retained………1.5m. [Note: do not need reference to partial removal for vehicular access]

4. M1 (external facing materials)

5. The mortar to be used in the development hereby permitted should be lime based using 1:1:6 mix (cement:lime:aggregate) unless otherwise agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.

6. Prior to the commencement of development a sample panel of bricks and mortar shall be made available on site for inspection and approval by the District Planning Authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

7. The rainwater goods to be used in the development hereby permitted shall have a black colour finish and the guttering shall be on rise and fall brackets unless otherwise agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority.

8. The joinery details of the windows, doors and their frames shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The windows, doors and their frames shall be implemented as approved and shall a painted finish unless otherwise agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority.

9. Before development is commenced details and samples of the materials for the surfacing of the driveway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and implemented as approved.

10. Prior to the demolition of the existing dwelling a scheme for the demolition and reclamation of materials shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority.

11. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, Schedule 2, Parts 1 & 2 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development as defined by the Classes of both these Parts shall be provided within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby permitted without express planning permission from the District Planning Authority.

12. Z1-……..Drawing No. Lucas/04/01b received on 8^th April 2005 and the site plan on Drawing No. Lucas/04/02b received on 8^th April 2005 showing the residential curtilage of the dwelling outlined in red.

Reasons:

1. A1

2. To preserve the historic fabric before demolition or alteration in accordance with policy G1 of the adopted West Lindsey Local Plan and policy STRAT1 of the emerging local plan.

3. L5 in accordance with policy G1 of the adopted West Lindsey Local Plan and policy STRAT1 of the emerging local plan.

4. M1 in accordance with policies G1 and H10 of the adopted West Lindsey Local Plan and policies STRAT1 and RES1 of the emerging local plan.

5. M1 in accordance with policies G1 and H10 of the adopted West Lindsey Local Plan and policies STRAT1 and RES1 of the emerging local plan.

6. M1 in accordance with policies G1 and H10 of the adopted West Lindsey Local Plan and policies STRAT1 and RES1 of the emerging local plan.

7. M1 in accordance with policies G1 and H10 of the adopted West Lindsey Local Plan and policies STRAT1 and RES1 of the emerging local plan.

8. M1 in accordance with policies G1 and H10 of the adopted West Lindsey Local Plan and policies STRAT1 and RES1 of the emerging local plan.

9. M1 in accordance with policies G1 and H10 of the adopted West Lindsey Local Plan and policies STRAT1 and RES1 of the emerging local plan.

10. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the materials of the existing property are re-used where possible in the interests of sustainable development.

11. Due to the special nature of this application and the need to retain control over the character and amenities of the locality in accordance with policies G1, H5 and H10 of the adopted West Lindsey Local Plan and policies STRAT1, RES1 and RES8 of the emerging local plan.

12. Z1

Reasons for Granting:

It is considered that the proposal, subject to the suggested conditions, is justified and would not have a detrimental impact upon the character or amenities of the landscape or locality and as such accords with the requirements of the relevant policies of the adopted West Lindsey Local Plan, the emerging local plan and national guidance.

Representees to be notified:

Local resident (as above)

Standard Letter Special Letter Draft enclosed

Prepared by : Miss Hazel Purser Date : 26^th May 2005

(updated 8^th June 2005)

Scheme of delegation report. Application M05/P/0209

Development: Retrospective planning application to retain sun room and garden shed

at: 10 The Close Sturton by Stow

BVPI 109c Target 80% in 8 weeks

Description: Detached bungalow seeking retrospective planning permission to retain an extension to the rear of the property.

Reason for referral:

Cllr Shore wishes the application to be considered by the Committee because ‘The applicant has made a series of measures which have affected the amenity and been out of keeping with visual aspects of Twitchell. This application is the latest of a long history of disregard for others. On these grounds I believe permission should be denied and at least the breeze block shed removed.’

Relevant history: None since 1975.

Representations:

Chairman/Ward member(s) – Cllr Theobald agrees with the issuing of a delegated decision, but Cllr Shore does not.

Parish/Town Council/Meeting – ‘…object to retrospective planning applications and feel they should be strongly discouraged. Members would query the description of garden shed. This building is a permanent breeze block building, higher than the surrounding fence and very close to the boundary. Members would also query the possibility of the footings being built over a drainage pipe and where a former dyke has been filled in. There is a clear case of over development of the site creating a poor visual aspect. What is the purpose of the gate? It should be pedestrian access only. Q.10 Par 3 Council suggests that this may be incorrect.’

Local residents – Mrs Goscombe, 5 Twitchell states ‘The concrete breeze block structure very recently erected as viewed from my windows is not a pretty site, nor an improvement of Twitchell and I strongly object to it, also to the owner of the above property felling a magnificent tree and a 40 year old green hedge resulting in a lot of lost wildlife also erect a 6/8ft wooden fence a good 4ft outwards onto the Twitchell verges, over a drain. Last but not least access to and from Twitchell has never been granted to residents of ‘The Close’ as it is narrow.’

Mr and Mrs Hardman, 7 Twitchell state ‘We oppose the above application on the grounds that the extensions have been built in breeze block which constituted an eye sore to our frontal outlook onto Twitchell. This view is upheld by all the residents on Twitchell.’

LCC Highway – Not applicable

Environment Agency – None received

Archaeology – No objections

Building Control – No objections

Relevant policies:

WLLP: G1, H10

Review: STRAT1, RES11

Assessment (of representations and policy) and conclusions:

This a detached bungalow with a garage attached at the side of the property. The application seeks retrospective planning permission to retain a sun room and brick and breeze block shed at the rear of the property.

The brick shed runs behind the original garage along the boundary with number 11 The Close and is 2.5 metres high with a flat roof. This shed has a brick face on the south and west elevation and breeze block on the north and east elevation. The sun lounge is located away from the boundary.

The extensions are at the rear of the property and are not visible from The Close, however, Twitchell runs along the rear of the property and two objections have been received from residents on this street. The Parish Council also object to the application.

Some of the objections received are not planning matters and can not be considered when making a decision.

The two local residents object to the bare breeze block on the north elevation. A 1.8 metre high fence covers the majority of this end wall. There is approximately 0.5 of a metre of breeze block on show above the fence. A condition can be added to make sure a satisfactory finish is added to this wall.

With the extensions there still remains an adequate amount of outdoor rear garden space, approximately 77 square metres and is therefore not considered to be over-developed.

Planning permission is not required to create a pedestrian access from a garden.

The tree referred to by one of the objectors was not covered by a TPO and therefore no consent would be required to fell it nor for the removal of the hedge.

With consideration given to all these matters it is felt permission can not be reasonably withheld.

Reasons for granting permission:

The proposal complies with policies G1 and H10 of the West Lindsey Local Plan.

Recommendation: Grant permission subject to the following conditions:-

1. Details of the proposed finish for the north elevation wall of the shed hereby permitted together with a timescale for its application shall be submitted to the DPA within 28 days of the date of this permission. The approved details shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed timescale.

Reasons:

1. To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with policies G1 and H10 of the West Lindsey Local Plan.

Notes/Informative

Representees to be notified -

Standard Letter Special Letter Draft enclosed

Prepared by : VJO Date :

Scheme of delegation report. Application M04/P/0968

BVPI 109b – Minor application – Target 65% in 8 weeks

Development: Erect detached bungalow with integral garage

At: Land adjacent to The Lilacs, Legsby Road, Market Rasen

Description: A single storey dwelling is proposed on this trapezoid-shaped plot, currently part of the garden of The Lilacs, bounded to its west by the cemetery, to the north by a head-height solid fence alongside 1 James Court, and to the south by a conifer hedge. A new driveway is proposed close to that which would continue to serve The Lilacs, which has both ground and first floor windows facing west towards the proposed bungalow.

Reason for referral to Committee

Requested by Ward Member Councillor D W Kitchen: no evidence is given that the existing property will retain a turning facility.

Relevant history:

98/P/0626 – erect 3 bungalows – granted conditionally.

M00/P/0021 – erect 3 bungalows with integral and detached garages – granted.

Representations:

Ward Member(s): -

Parish Council: No objection: the development should be aesthetic to its surroundings.

Ancholme Internal Drainage Board: No objection.

Local residents: Objections from occupants of ‘Rose Leigh’ on grounds of detriment to privacy and outlook, ‘Deva’ on grounds of detriment to privacy and generation of on-street parking, and 1 James Court on grounds of loss of light to south-facing windows arising from massing and roof height and any boundary consolidation, detriment to trees, detriment to light of west facing windows of the proposed bungalow arising from tree shade, and incorrect plotting of St James Court bungalows.

LCC Highways: Standard condition B23 requested (access and turning facility to be provided on site as per submitted plan).

Environment Agency: No comments.

Relevant policies:

Adopted Local Plan G1, H10.

First Review STRAT1, STRAT5, RES1, RES8.

PPG3 – existing garden use falls within PPG3 definition of previously developed land.

Assessment (of representations and policy) and conclusions:

Following inaccuracies identified in the site layout drawings submitted with the application an amended block plan at 1:100 scale was received, together with an amended location plan. The amended drawings took account of the requirement of County Highways for adequate turning/parking space within the plot. County Highways have subsequently expressed no objection to the amended proposals on highway safety capacity grounds and it is therefore considered unreasonable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of generation of on-street parking. Objections concerning loss of outlook and detriment to privacy in respect of dwellings on the opposite side of Legsby Road are also regarded not to warrant refusal of planning permission given the separation distance involved. The occupants of 1 James Court have maintained their objections, primarily on the grounds of loss of light to their rear-facing bedroom windows (2 windows) and rear-facing kitchen and bathroom windows, due to proximity and massing of the proposed bungalow taking into account its roofline, and in the event of increasing the height of the rear boundary fence (in the applicant’s ownership) for privacy reasons. The windows on the rear elevation of 1 James Court are a secondary bedroom window towards the eastern end of this elevation, a sole bedroom window slightly off-centre of this elevation, a sole bathroom window further to the west, and a secondary kitchen window towards the western end. The impact of the proposed development on the residential amenities of this bungalow is considered to be the main issue in determining the application. Although there are trees with limited canopy spread alongside the cemetery boundary with the application site, the principal trees in the street scene are along the cemetery road frontage and would be unaffected by the proposed development.

The rear elevation of the proposed bungalow scales off the 1:500 block plan at 7.2 metres from the rear boundary fence and 8.7 metres from the rear elevation of 1 James Court. The proposed roof ridgeline would run parallel to the common rear boundary. The highest part of this roof ridgeline, at 5.7 metres from ground level, would be limited to a 2.5 metres wide section opposite the south eastern corner of the 1 James Court Bungalow. From this section the roof ridge would fall away on both sides to a secondary ridge height of 4.1 metres to the west, falling again to eaves level. As only this lower section of roof would be directly opposite the sole exclusive bedroom window on the rear elevation of 1 James Court, it is not considered that the siting and massing of the proposed bungalow are such as to warrant refusal of planning permission having regard to loss of light to neighbouring habitable room windows. Although it may be appropriate to increase the height of the common boundary fence as a privacy screen once details of finished floor and ground levels are known, permitted development rights allow such a fence to be raised to 2.0 metres without the necessity for planning permission, and it is not considered that any such increase to this height would incur unduly detrimental loss of light to that bedroom window with an exclusive south-facing window. In addition the proposed siting of the bungalow is not such as to obstruct the late afternoon/evening sunlight to the rear of 1 James Court.

Recommendation:

Grant full planning permission subject to the following conditions:-

1. A1.

2. B23.

3. DR6 #(details of surface water disposal).

4. L6 (boundary treatment details required).

5. M1 (materials details required).

6. RW1 (no ‘permitted development’ windows in the north and east facing parts of the roof space).

7. Z3 (section details required).

Reasons:

1. A1.

2. B23 and to accord with policy G1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan.

3. DR6 and to accord with policy G1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan.

4. L6 and to accord with policies G1 and H10 of the West Lindsey Local Plan.

5. M1 and to accord with policy G1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan.

6. RW1 and to accord with policy G1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan.

7. Z3 and to accord with policy G1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan.

Notes and informatives:

Reasons for granting permission:

The proposed development comprises an acceptable single storey dwelling which would not be unduly detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring dwellings.

Representees to be notified –

‘Rose Leigh’, ‘Deva’, 1 James Court occupants.

Standard Letter Special Letter Draft enclosed

Prepared by : K Hymas Date : 11 May 2005

REPORTS TO FOLLOW:

Item 9 M04/P/1027 Planning application to erect 4 bedroom dwelling with

Wold View attached garaging

20/8/04 Land south of Thorganby House, Swallow Road, Thorganby

Item 10 M04/P/1068 Change use of land to a quad bike park

Wold View Plantation Lodge, Holton Road, Nettleton

5/11/04

Background Papers

Observations received and recorded under Consultations/Representations for each application are background papers and are held in the individual application files.

M04/P/1027 WOLD VIEW 20/8/04	PLANNING APPLICATION TO ERECT 4 BEDROOM DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGING LAND SOUTH OF THORGANBY HOUSE FARM YARD, SWALLOW ROAD, THORGANBY BVPI 109b – Minor application – Target 65% in 8 weeks
	For: Mr & Mrs P Salmon, Larkswood, Swallow Road, Thorganby, Lincolnshire
Case Officer	Michelle Clewes Direct Dial 01427 676654 michelle.clewes@west-lindsey.gov.uk
Description (the site, surroundings, and development proposals – including site area, density/ building area as appropriate)	This is a full application for a detached 4 bedroomed dwelling with double garage in the hamlet of Thorganby which is located in the countryside in the Lincolnshire Wolds AONB. The greenfield site of 0.138 ha is part of a wide gap between Thorganby House Farm and a pair of semi-detached cottages on the eastern side of Swallow Road. The site slopes significantly eastwards. The dwelling proposed has a ‘T’ shaped footprint and uses the slope to achieve a split level “house” which appears single storey to the west elevation facing the road and two storey to the east elevation looking towards the countryside. The 4 bedrooms are on the lower level with living areas, kitchen, dining etc. on the upper floor. The 2 bay garage is detached and linked by a wall to form an enclosed courtyard. Access is at the northern end of the site frontage off Swallow Road. The site is visible in the street scene and in wider views from surrounding countryside.
Relevant planning history (including on adjoining sites)	W11/692/89 outline for 2 dwellings – refused.
Representations (statutory consultees, neighbours and information in support of application)	Chairman/Ward Member(s) – Councillor Theobald as Ward Member requests the application be considered by Planning Services Committee in order to consider the special circumstances of this case. Thorganby Village Meeting – support the application – see Appendix 1. Local residents – All supporting application: Kenneth Vessey – All Saints Church PPC Secretary & Church Warden, St Walston, Swallow Road, Thorganby – see Appendix 2. Roger Douglas, The Old Rectory, Crosby – see Appendix 3. Petition of support signed by 100% of Thorganby village residents – see Appendix 4. LCC Highways – request condition that access and turning completed before the dwelling is occupied and retained thereafter. Conservation Officer – see Appendix 5. Environment Agency – no objection. English Nature – no objection. LAO – no further archaeological input required. Package of supporting information and a design statement submitted by applicant – letter included at Appendix 6 and a copy of all supporting information and letters received is available for Members’ inspection at the Guildhall.
Relevant Policies (national, regional, structure plan, local plan and other constraints – AONB, Conservation Area etc.)	PPS1, PPS7, PPG3, PPG13. WLLP: G1, ENV10, ENV11, ENV15, ENV20, SA10, C1, C2, H10. Emerging Local Plan: STRAT1, STRAT3, STRAT9, STRAT12, SUS8, SUS9, RES1, RES10, CORE2, NBE9, NBE14.
Assessment (of representations and policy considerations) and conclusions	The main issues in this case relate to the principle of development on a greenfield site in this countryside location within the hamlet of Thorganby; the impact of the development on the special character of the AONB; the ability for the proposal to be integrated into the natural and built environment including the appropriateness of the external appearance, design and siting; affect on the amenity of adjoining/nearby occupiers; safety of the new access. Central Government Guidance emphasises the need to ensure the retention and creation of vital and viable rural communities whilst protecting and preserving the countryside. In the advanced housing strategy (West Lindsey Local Plan First Review Revised Deposit Draft), the settlements of West Lindsey have been placed in an hierarchy so that any new development can be appropriately located. The concept of a settlement hierarchy is based upon the principle that each settlement in the District can be placed in a category. Thorganby is in the countryside which includes the smallest hamlets within it. Such hamlets have severely limited or no facilities, such that residents need to access basic services by car and new development in such locations is generally deemed unsustainable. In addition the thrust of sustainability policies at National, Regional and Local level point to the use of brownfield sites in sustainable locations for new development. The emerging Local Plan indicates that in small hamlets in the countryside no new windfall housing is acceptable in principle unless the development is essential to the needs of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, mineral extraction or other land use which necessarily requires a countryside location. However, it is acknowledged that these small hamlets such as Thorganby often have a strong sense of community. Thorganby has lost a number of facilities over the years (e.g. village shop/post office). The loss of a younger family with children can have a far greater adverse impact on a small countryside community than if such a family moved away from a larger village. The applicant has submitted a detailed package of information regarding his and his family’s lengthy period of residency in Thorganby and their commitment and involvement in the continuing functioning of their community. The range and extent of the applicant and his family’s involvement and value to their community is very evident from the letters of support and petition from village residents. The submitted information indicates Mr Salmon works as an Agricultural Merchant and that he, his wife and three children currently live in a semi-detached rented cottage in Thorganby and details the reasoning behind his wish to build a property and includes evidence that despite searching for over 18 months no suitable property has been available for purchase in Thorganby. It is this desire to remain within Thorganby and not be forced to look further afield that has prompted this application. The special circumstances put forward need to be weighed against the policy position. The hamlet of Thorganby is characterised by loosely knit groups of dwellings generally on large plots and agricultural buildings along Swallow Road. The application site is well located in relation to these groupings being part of a gap between buildings and their curtilages within the body of the hamlet. A farm worker’s cottage formerly occupied a roadside position on the northern part of this plot. The design statement details the steps involved in the design and detailing process in order to achieve a form of development on this sloping site which minimises its impact on the AONB. The access is satisfactory and no detriment to the amenity of adjoining/nearby properties would occur. In terms of design and impact I concur with the comments of the Conservation Officer at Appendix 5 and subject to careful choice of materials, boundary treatment and landscaping consider that the proposal is sensitively designed, respects and reflects local vernacular and the proposed dwelling would integrate well with the immediate and wider surroundings and not impact adversely on the natural and built environment in this locality which gives the AONB its special character. Conclusion The scheme in terms of its site location and the siting, design and appearance of the dwelling is acceptable. Principle remains the outstanding issue. A strict interpretation of the relevant National, Regional adopted and emerging policies would not support new residential development in this location. However, the applicant has put forward a particular and individual set of special needs and circumstances referred to above and set out in the supporting information. 100% of the Thorganby community has, exceptionally, in your officer’s experience, supported this application. A unique set of issues and circumstances have been advanced by the applicant and the community. In my view the special circumstances of the applicant, the support of the community and lack of suitable alternative existing accommodation for sale are material factors and are unique in my experience in West Lindsey. The key issue for Members to consider is whether these outweigh the normal policy considerations.
Recommendation	Recommending in line with policy results in the following reason for refusal. This greenfield site is in the small hamlet of Thorganby in the countryside in an unsustainable location with severely limited community services and facilities where planning permission for new housing is granted only in exceptional circumstances connected with agriculture, horticulture, forestry, mineral extraction or other land uses which necessarily require a countryside location. In the absence of such circumstances development here will be contrary to planning policies designed to protect the countryside for its own sake and to concentrate new building on previously developed land rather than greenfield sites, such as this one, in sustainable settlements that are not unrelated to facilities and services and heavily dependent on the use of the private car as is the case here. The proposal is thus contrary to central government guidance in PPG1, 3, 13 and PPS7, RSS8, adopted Local Plan Policies G1 and C1 and emerging West Lindsey Local Plan First Review Revised Deposit Draft policies STRAT1, STRAT3, STRAT9, STRAT12, and RES10. However, should members consider the particular special circumstances put forward by the applicant for his specific local housing need should exceptionally outweigh the policy stance in this case, then permission should be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. A1. 2. The external facing materials to the roofs shall be natural clay pantiles a sample of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority before development is commenced. The approved sample shall be used in the construction of the development. 3. Before development is commenced a sample panel (minimum size 1m x 1m) of the external facing materials to be used in the development hereby permitted (including the dwelling, garage, and link, retaining and other walls) shall be constructed on the site, inspected and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed in the approved external facing material. 4. L6. 5. L2. 6. The windows, doors and frames to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be of timber construction. The external finish of which shall be agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. 7. The dwelling and garage shall be constructed in accordance with the levels and cross-sections shown on the submitted plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority. 8. RE1. 9. The dwelling hereby permitted shall be first occupied by the applicant, his wife and children only. 10. Before the dwelling is occupied, the access and turning space shall be completed in accordance with the approved plan Drawing No. 04-514/112/A dated August 2004 and retained for that use thereafter. Reasons: 1. A1. 2/3 M1 To ensure the use of appropriate materials in this AONB location in accordance with policies G1, H10 and SA10 of the WLLP. 4. L6 in accordance with policies G1, H10 and SA10 of the WLLP. 5. L2. 6. As 2 above. 7. In order to ensure a satisfactory form and height of development on this sloping site in accordance with policies G1 and SA10 of the WLLP. 8. In order to allow the Local Planning Authority to assess any proposals on this sensitive and sloping site in the AONB in accordance with policies G1 and SA10 of the WLLP. 9. As the dwelling is granted exceptionally in this countryside location due only to the special circumstances in this case put forward by the applicant. 10. To ensure vehicles can enter/leave the highway in a forward gear in the interests of highway safety.

_______________________________________________________________________________

M04/P/1068 WOLD VIEW 5/11/04	CHANGE USE OF LAND TO A QUAD BIKE PARK PLANTATION LODGE, HOLTON ROAD, NETTLETON BVPI 109c Target 80% in 8 weeks
	For: Mrs. S. Price
Case Officer	Eric Marcroft Direct Dial 01427 676668 eric.marcroft@west-lindsey.gov.uk
Update	This application has previously been reported to this committee but has not been considered for administrative reasons and also in order to await the detailed comments of the Environmental Protection Manager on the submitted noise impact assessment.
Description (the site, surroundings, and development proposals – including site area, density/ building area as appropriate)	The site is within an area of sporadic residential and commercial development within the open countryside to the south west of Nettleton village. The land the subject of the proposed use is located off the western side of Holton Road (A46) and is a part of a larger holding, with fields either side of the access drive from the main road and a triangular area of woodland separating one of these from the application site itself and the adjacent bungalow and other buildings. Surrounding land is generally agricultural, although along A46 to the south there are a number of dwellings and beyond them a garage and filling station and former commercial premises. A46 is subject to the national speed limit here. The Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is located immediately adjacent to the east side Holton Road.
Relevant planning history (including on adjoining sites)	None at the property other than a recent permission to extend the bungalow. There is outline permission on a large area of land to the south, (comprising part of the site of the former commercial premises) behind the frontage development on A46, for a hotel and leisure park complex, granted in 2002. The reserved matters relating to this development have very recently been submitted and are currently under consideration.
Representations (statutory consultees, neighbours and information in support of application)	Parish Council – Objects because of the potential increase in traffic at the entrance from A46, noise particularly at weekends and summer evenings, conflict with the nearby AONB and because the park will be an inappropriate neighbour for the proposed leisure development on adjoining land. In relation to the noise assessment the Parish Council have commented that whatever the tests show it is still the case that the geography of the area will funnel noise up through the village, and disturb the tranquillity of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The noise assessment does not take into account the impact on local wildlife, especially in the vicinity of the fishing lake. Local residents – Several letters received, raising the following points against the proposal:- potential disturbance to residents from noise which will carry on the prevailing wind to properties in the village; safety of the access onto A46; availability of toilet facilities for users; even if it starts at a low level the usage could increase; disturbance to wildlife because of noise and lighting; dust in dry weather as the soil is sandy here; and because there are already facilities for this type of activity elsewhere. Concerns have also been expressed in relation to the nearby fishing lake and the potential to affect business there, the existence of a moto-cross facility at Thoresway Top, ask how matters such as exhausts and hours of use will be controlled and remark that the noise is likely to occur at weekends when local residents are enjoying their leisure time. LCC Highways – No objections as the amount of traffic generated is likely to be very small, there is adequate parking and access and good visibility. Requests a condition is included about providing parking and turning space as shown on the plan. Environment Agency – Not applicable. Ancholme IDB – No observations. Archaeology – No objections. Building Control – No objections. Environmental Health – Consider that there are no substantial grounds in terms of noise impact, on which a refusal of permission could be recommended. (see Appendix A for full text). English Nature – No objections. Wolds Countryside Service – No objections providing conditions are used to restrict the facility to small and occasional use (see Appendix B for full text). Applicant - A letter from the applicant in support of the application is included at appendix C
Relevant Policies (national, regional, structure plan, local plan and other constraints – AONB, Conservation Area etc.)	West Lindsey Local Plan: G1 General policy applicable to all development RC1 General policy for recreation and tourism RC3 Countryside and water based recreation RC8 Environmentally damaging sports Review: STRAT 1 General policy relating to all development CRT 1 Local needs recreation and community facilities CRT 5 Countryside recreation facilities CRT 12 Environmentally damaging sports
Assessment (of representations and policy considerations) and conclusions	The determining issues are whether or not this is a use which needs a countryside location and if so, whether or not its impact on the character and appearance of the countryside and on the living conditions of dwellings in the vicinity is acceptable, and whether there will be a detrimental effect on road safety because of increased use of the access. The development is of such a nature that it may not be a good neighbour if it were in a densely built up area and so this rural location is, on first consideration at least, more suitable. As the site is located behind an area of woodland such that it will not be seen from the main road, then it is considered that there will be no direct adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. However the property as a whole is visible from the scarp slope to the east, which is within the AONB. Also it is claimed that noise from use of the site will add to noise from the road and detract from the attractiveness of the AONB as a result. Among other things, policy RC8 requires development of environmentally damaging sports not to harm the environment, especially areas of special protection (such as AONBs). The Lincolnshire Wolds Countryside Service Manager has carefully considered the proposal and on the basis of the limited scale of the use proposed he supports a conditional approval in the terms of this report and recommendation – see appendix B. The same policy also lists suitable locations for environmentally damaging sports as being redundant airfields, land adjacent to existing sites in the same use, derelict or despoiled land, or (temporarily) on set aside land (providing there is no harm to neighbours, landscape or wildlife); and on such sites, this kind of development is acceptable only where landform and landscape provide an effective screen or where other measures to screen and soundproof are undertaken. The policy also says hours of operation will be controlled. However, this proposal does not fit any of the location criteria comfortably, and therefore has to be assessed on its individual merits to see if any harm is likely to result. This will depend on things like the scale and frequency of use and whether any other measures are available to restrict the use and limit the impact. These could measures such as limiting periods of use, limiting the number of bikes, the use of advance bookings and having little or no ancillary development. All of these matters have been discussed with the applicant who has confirmed that the activities will be strictly limited and controlled – see appendix C. An unrestricted use clearly has the potential to create problems for some of the reasons outlined by the parish council and the residents. However, taking account of the restricted nature of the operation as set out in the applicant’s letter – primarily at weekends and possibly also some weekdays in the summer – and that the bikes will not be fitted with ‘racing exhausts’, and there will be no public address system either. Some objectors have referred to experience of earlier nuisance from similar activity in the vicinity of the site, however this has allegedly been created by other people using motorbikes. The noise potential has now been assessed by environmental health officers following the submission of a Noise Impact Assessment by a specialist Noise and Vibration Consultant. After careful consideration of the report, and having regard to the concerns of the parish Council in relation to the adjoining development site and the geography of the area, this council’s Environmental Protection Manager is of the opinion “that there are no substantial grounds in terms of noise impact, on which I could recommend a refusal of the proposal.” – see appendix A. Access is also an important issue. The driveway itself is wide enough for two cars to pass along its length. Its junction with A46 is on a fast, unrestricted stretch of road and the increase in usage could be material compared with the present level. But the limited amount of use proposed, coupled with adequate on-site parking, explains why the highway authority has not objected. The parish council also refer to the permission to develop the adjoining land. The scale of that proposal – involving a hotel, health/fitness facilities, restaurant and bar, fishing ponds and sports and leisure use (unspecified) of the surrounding land – is vastly different from this one and also has the potential to be more significant in terms of its impact. The reserved matters for this development are now under consideration, however given the restricted nature of the current proposal, and with the imposition of appropriate conditions, it is not considered that this major development proposal will be prejudiced by the current small scale leisure proposal. Policy RC1 supports recreation and community facilities which serve local needs and RC3 supports countryside recreational facilities provided the development would not adversely affect the countryside or the amenity of the public generally. In relation to the concerns about the impact upon nature conservation interests it should be noted that English Nature has raised no objections to the proposals. On balance, providing appropriate conditions are imposed to control the way the quad bike park is operated, it is considered that the application can be supported. Because of the concerns over potential noise from the site, it is recommended that a temporary permission should be granted, to enable the use to be monitored over a reasonable period. At the end of that period, the use can be reviewed in the light of the monitored impacts, assuming that the applicant seeks a further permission to continue the use at that time.
Reasons for granting permission	The proposal requires a location away from built up residential areas and is on a scale such that, controlled by conditions, it can be tailored to comply with the relevant policies in the development plan.
Recommendation	Grant permission, subject to the following conditions:- 1. A.1 2. The date when the site is first brought into use as a quad park open to visiting members of the public shall be notified in writing to the local planning authority no later than four weeks after that event takes place. 3. The use shall be discontinued no later than one year from the date referred to in condition 2. 4. Not more than three (3) quad bikes shall have their engines running at any one time. 5. The quad park shall not be open before 9am or after 6pm on any day. 6. The quad park shall not be used otherwise than on Saturdays, Sundays and, between the months of April to September inclusive only, on a maximum of one additional day each week. 7. None of the quad bikes to be used shall have engine capacities higher than 180cc, neither shall they be used unless they are fitted with an exhaust system which meets legal requirements for use on the public highway (Motor Vehicle Construction and Use Regulations). 8. Except in the case of an emergency, no amplified sound shall be transmitted when the quad park is in use. Reasons:- 1. A.1 2/3. To allow a period of time for the impact of the development to be assessed in terms of its effect on the living conditions of nearby dwellings in accordance with policy G1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan. 4-8. To minimise the potential impact on the living conditions of nearby dwellings in accordance with policy G1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan.

______________________________________________________________________________