Normanby by Spital

Officers Report Planning Application No: 135428

PROPOSAL: Planning application to erect 3no. dwellings.

LOCATION: Land Rear of Bottle And Glass Public House 46 Main Street Normanby-by-Spital Market Rasen LN8 2HE WARD: Waddingham and Spital WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr J Summers APPLICANT NAME: Martin Merrigan TARGET DECISION DATE: 04/01/2017 DEVELOPMENT TYPE: Minor - Dwellings CASE OFFICER: George Backovic

RECOMMENDED DECISION: Grant Permission

Description: The site is located on and forms the western section of what was the rear car parking area serving the Bottle and Glass public house in Normanby by Spital. To the east is the car park entrance which is bounded by the public house and post office (with residential above). To the north is a residential dwelling and the Grade 1 listed St Peter’s and St Paul’s Church. To the rear (east) is a commercial building. A terrace of three dwellings has been substantially completed on the site following the grant of planning permission in 2016 for a three dwellings (Ref.133025). As the houses that have been erected on the site are slightly different to that granted this application has been submitted to regularise the situation.

Relevant history: Permission granted for 3 dwellings (Ref 133025).

Representations: Chairman/Ward member(s): The only observations at this point that I would like to make is, if we simply accept secondary applications for the rectification of deliberate mistakes or otherwise. Then we are simply condoning the practice of building outside the original permission and in some cases allowing developers to use this as a strategy for the future knowing they will eventually achieve their original goal even though it was not described at the outset within the application. Clerk to Normanby Parish Council:

My Council unanimously object to this application.

1. How is the overall building length to be reduced by 1000mm, considering the building is already up? Fundamentally we question the accuracy of this application. It would appear that it is proposing the building of 3 dwellings but three newly and unfinished dwellings occupy the site and have not complied with the planning conditions. Does this mean that these three dwellings will be demolished and three smaller ones erected on the site? Normanby by Spital

2. This application form states (item 12) that surface water is going into a soakaway. If you refer back to application no. 134231 there is a report from Ward Cole (March 2016) which states a soakaway is impossible on this site due to lack of space and Anglian Water state that surface water cannot go into the foul drain and therefore do not approve the plan submitted. 3. If you go back even further to the original application 133025, when permission was granted (June 2016) with 14 conditions, condition 3 states that no building will commence until the disposal of surface water has been approved by the local authority 4. Could you confirm that an easement has been granted so access is available to the new properties, as the Land Registry infers access only for public house and shop/post office 5. Both upper and lower windows are smaller than the original plan and they are so small they do not enhance the properties at all. My Council object to these changes and insist the original design is adhered to. 6. Even without chimneys, no way can this build be described as looking like a renovated barn. 7. The parking spaces left for the public house are much too narrow as are the three parking spaces allowed for the new building. One being very difficult to access and the fact that most households have 2 cars, especially as there is virtually no public transport (plus the fact if they have visitors) where would these park? 8. Parking on Main Street should not be an option as it is a narrow road, it reduces visibility when exiting the car park when vehicles are parked on Main Street. 9. If cars are parked in spaces 14 & 15, this obstructs the access/egress to the flat belonging to the shop/post office 10. My Council still challenge the original Design and Access Statement, which had a lot of incorrect information. (See comments submitted regarding planning application 133025) 11. To our knowledge an archaeological dig report was not submitted prior to commencement (condition no 6 of permission being granted), though a report has appeared – dated November 2016 saying no input required. The non- compliance of this condition has been pointed out on numerous occasions as no dig can be done as the building is now up. It should have been done before commencement 12. Nowhere can I find a Highways report. If one has been submitted, may my Council see it please? 13. It should be mentioned that the view from the Grade I listed church has been impaired by these building as the roof line can be seen from the church and especially from the church yard. 14. My Council would like to point out that if the builder had adhered to all the building plans and more importantly the conditions set by WLDC, we would not be in this situation now. If the planning officer and building inspector has fulfilled their role, which my Council assumed they would, the builder would have had to comply with conditions set out before he started building. 15. Permission was granted when the planning committee knew that a soakaway was an impossibility, and now, 5 months later, we are asked to consider an application which states surface water will go to a soakaway. Normanby by Spital

Local residents: 44 Post Office/44 Main Street, 42 Main Street, 23 Main Street and Mulberry House,

Summary of objections:

• Making the pub car park smaller forces customers to park on the roads leading to increased noise and disturbance being woken up by car doors slamming and conversations. • Insufficient number of car parking spaces has led to an increase in parking on Main Street causing difficulties for residents trying to get in and out of their drives • Proposed spaces restrict access to my yard • Highway safety concerns due to hampered visibility not theoretical but observed • Soakaways would cause potential problems. • The concerns of Anglian Water and residents of adjacent properties have not been resolved in relation to surface water drainage • Not affordable houses as originally claimed • How can the dimensions of the building be decreased as it has already been built • Should be built in accordance with the approved plans, surely the architects should have been aware that the plans as originally submitted might cause problems. Building Control regulations allow the size of windows as originally proposed. • The houses are inferior to those approved and remove details of interest including chimneys with no stone cills. Should be built as approved • Incorrect information submitted with misleading reference to the design and access statement

Local residents: Coles Barn, Private Lane; 41 Station Road, Grimsby; Charmill Cottage; Dog Kennel Lodge, Legsby Road

Summary of support:

• I live in the property immediately next door to this development and I have no objections to it.

• I am looking to purchase plot 2 to relocate nearer to my place of work and wish to support the small changes proposed and look forward to integrating with village life

• I believe that more affordable housing like the three properties within this application are required locally. As somebody who has recently been looking to purchase a property within the village whilst also renting here, unfortunately I have been unsuccessful. I have had to relocate out of the area in order to find an affordable alternative. Normanby by Spital

• I find the buildings to be of a form and finish in keeping with the architecture of Normanby by Spital. They appear to be constructed of materials used widely throughout the village!

• Parking issues in this village cannot be apportioned to the development of this site as the car park was a private business car park and not a community/public car park, congestion during school drop off and collection times have in my view remained very much the same post development as pre development with no detrimental effect!

• Small villages such as Normanby by Spital need developments of this kind to provide accommodation for our young families and couples and also to ensure custom for our essential services and businesses. The public house and village shop will be provided with three more households as almost captive customers, which will of course help support their continuing trade! For a village of this size to remain sustainable we must promote such developments of brownfield land and support local developers providing much needed affordable, in keeping and attractive housing

LCC Highways: Having given due regard to the appropriate local and national planning policy guidance (in particular the National Planning Policy Framework), Lincolnshire County Council (as Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority) has concluded that the proposed development is acceptable. Accordingly, Lincolnshire County Council (as Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority) does not wish to object to this planning application.

Archaeology: No archaeological input required

Historic England: We note the changes that are proposed and have no further comments to add to our initial advice. Historic England therefore recommends that your authority should determine this application in accordance with local and national policy and with the advice of your in house conservation staff.

Conservation Officer: The building, although not built in accordance with approved plans, is similar in form to the approved plan in terms of scale, mass, siting and materials, and does not impact harmfully upon the immediate setting of the grade I listed church of St. Peter. However, these buildings form a group with the nearby church, and are within its wider setting, and in terms of good design, the revised application refers to a 'barn conversion' style of design. the structure, which is almost complete, lacks any window or door head details, and almost all domestic and agricultural buildings do have some detail at this level. This missing detail does detract from what could have been some very attractive development. A very domestic style of door has been utilised, containing coloured glass panels, which are considered inappropriate to this design ethos. I would therefore advise that a suitably detailed, Normanby by Spital

traditional, timber wide plank door is instead utilised as a more appropriate detail.

A condition is suggested requiring details of the proposed new doors to be supplied and approved in writing, and this should be placed on the decision notice.

Anglian Water (Growth and Planning Services):

We have re assessed the development and have removed our recommendation of a foul drainage condition.

Our recommendation of a surface water drainage condition still stands.

In order to provide a suitable drainage strategy for the lifetime of the development we require that all alternative methods of surface water drainage are considered in order to comply with the Surface Water Hierarchy, as outlined in Part H of the building regulations.

We would wish to see evidence to confirm compliance with the surface water hierarchy has been followed before a connection to the public surface water sewer can be agreed.

Anglian Water (Developer Services): We have approved the application.

In terms of Building Regulations see comments below (underlined)

Part H3. (3) Rainwater Drainage Rainwater from a system provided pursuant to sub-paragraphs (1) or (2) shall discharge to one of the following, listed in order of priority, (a) an adequate soakaway or some other adequate infiltration system, or, where that is not reasonably practicable, Ward Cole (Consulting Engineers) wrote in with the application with a supporting letter stating that soakaways were not feasible for the site, the report goes on and further explains this. (b) a watercourse, or, where that is not reasonably practicable, Watercourse is not practical, it’s a former pub in a village centre. (c) a sewer. Application granted to sewer, based on existing combined connection, my letter stated you will use the existing arrangement as 1) A soakaway will not work 2) A watercourse is not nearby (as clarified above under building regulations) .

Relevant Planning Policies:

National guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Normanby by Spital

http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/

West Lindsey Local Plan First Review 2006

- STRAT1: Development requiring planning permission; http://www2.west-lindsey.gov.uk/localplan/written/cpt3a.htm#strat1

- STRAT3: Settlement Hierarchy; http://www2.west-lindsey.gov.uk/localplan/written/cpt3a.htm#strat3

STRAT 7: Windfall and infilling housing development in subsidiary rural settlements https://planning.west- indsey.gov.uk/planning/localplan/written/cpt3b.htm#STRAT7

- STRAT9: Phasing of housing development and release of land; http://www2.west-lindsey.gov.uk/localplan/written/cpt3b.htm#strat9

- RES1: Housing layout and design; http://www2.west-lindsey.gov.uk/localplan/written/cpt6.htm#res1

- NBE14: Waste water disposal; http://www2.west-lindsey.gov.uk/localplan/written/cpt11.htm#nbe14

Emerging Planning Policy

The NPPF (paragraph 216) states that decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency with the NPPF.

The Submission Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (SCLLP) completed its Examination in Public on 14th December 2016. The final adopted CLLP will replace the West Lindsey Local Plan. Its policies can therefore be attached weight, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 216. The exact weight of each policy will depend on individual circumstances and the extent to which there are unresolved objections to the policy.

Relevant Draft Policies: LP1: A presumption in favour of sustainable development LP2: The spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy LP3: Level and distribution of growth LP4: Growth in villages LP14: Managing water resources and flood risk LP17: Landscape, townscape and views Normanby by Spital

LP26: Design and amenity LP53: Residential allocations: Medium and small villages LP55: Development in hamlets and in the countryside

Main issues

• Whether the changes to the plans as approved render the development unacceptable

Assessment: The principle of residential development on the site has been accepted by the original grant of planning permission and is not at issue.

As approved the terraced block of three dwellings had a total width of 19.25 metres with a length of 6.6 metres. Ridge height was approved at 6.5 metres.

As built the length has increased by 115 mm to 6.75 metres and the width has reduced by 251 mm to 18.99 metres. The ridge height has remained unchanged. Parking provision has been reduced from 4 car parking spaces to 3. The main changes have occurred to the fenestration of the approved dwellings:

• Windows on the front (eastern) elevation have been reduced in size and have no sandstone cills • Omission of solid porches to the front elevation • One type of new first floor window design on the rear (western) elevation as opposed to two; • Three additional narrow windows on the ground floor of the rear elevation • Double patio doors to the rear in place of single door with full length window attached. • Omission of chimneys

Amenity: There will be no unacceptable impacts on adjoining residential amenities by way of overlooking or loss of privacy from these changes.

Design Changes; In terms of the changes to the design as submitted there were concerns raised by the Conservation Officer in relation to the lack of window detailing and the doors in place together with a request to remove the porches proposed from the submitted plan as an overtly domestic feature on what was attempting to reference a “barn”. During the course of determination of this application all the suggestions of the conservation officer have been accepted and revised plans submitted. It will be necessary .to require details of the replacement doors to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and subsequently implemented in accordance with the approved details. On this basis the design is considered acceptable

Impact on Heritage Assets: In considering proposals which effect a listed building, regard has to be made of S66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings Normanby by Spital

and Conservation Areas Act) 1990 which requires the Local Planning Authority to 'have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of a special architectural or historic interest which it possesses'.

Relevant policies within the NPPF, which relate to significance of the setting of the adjoining listed building, include paragraphs 128, 129, 132, 133 and 134. The proposal has the potential to affect the setting of a listed building, St Peter’s and St Paul’s Church which is Grade 1 listed.

In looking at the significance of the setting of the church the Council’s Conservation officer was consulted who raised no concerns on this issue.

By virtue of the separation distances between the nearest dwelling and the listed building and the limited views between the two features the proposal would not have a detrimental or harmful impact on the character, appearance and setting of the Grade 1 listed building. Therefore, St Peter’s and St Paul’s Church’s setting will be preserved. In light of the above comments it is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with the duty contained within section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990 and is mindful of the guidance contained within National Planning Policy Framework, in particular; paragraph 132 which requires that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation as significance can be harmed or lost by development in it setting.

Car Parking and Highway Safety: The removal of the proposed porches for design reasons has also facilitated enough space for an additional car parking space to be provided bringing it up to the number approved and the developer will be submitting plans to cover this matter which can be controlled by condition, ensuring subsequent implementation. The objections raised to the lack of car parking and highway safety concerns arising out of the use of the access are noted, however, no objections have been raised by the Highway Authority.

Drainage: The surface water drainage to the development has already been installed connecting to the existing private drainage system on the site which eventually connects to a public sewer. Although Anglian Water have objected to the proposals as submitted their Developer Services arm have approved the proposal as they consider that it meets the Surface Water Hierarchy as outlined in the Building Regulations. LABC have also raised no objections to the method of drainage utilised. This does not therefore represent a reason to withhold consent

Access rights and Easements: These are private matters and are not considered as material considerations in the determination of a planning application.

Normanby by Spital

Conclusion The proposal has been considered against the provisions of the Development Plan in the first instance specifically policies STRAT 1 – Development Requiring Planning Permission, RES 1 Housing Layout and Design of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review 2006 (Saved Policies) as well as against all other material considerations. These other considerations include the Submission Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 and National Planning Practice Guidance.

Having assessed the application it is considered that the proposal subject to the conditions above is acceptable in terms of its design and relationship with heritage assets. No adverse impacts are considered to arise in terms of adjoining residential amenity, drainage or highway safety and a grant of planning permission is considered appropriate.

Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions.

1. With the exception of the detailed matters referred to by the conditions of this consent, the development hereby approved shall be completed in accordance with Drawings 011/0048B and 020A/0048B dated January 2017, prior to occupation of the hereby approved dwellings

Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the amendments made to the original plans that were required to make the development acceptable and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and saved Policy STRAT 1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review 2006

2. Within two months of the date of this permission details of the external doors to the front elevation of the hereby approved development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed details shall be implemented in full prior to occupation of the hereby approved dwellings.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the hereby approved dwellings in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and saved Policy STRAT 1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review 2006