Site: 145 Wragby Road , Lincoln , LN2 4PL Application No: 2014/0915/F Target Date: Agent: John Woodward Consultant Applicant: Breedon House Properties LTD Development: Erection of single storey extension to north elevation and

extended entrance foyer. Alterations to existing car park and vehicle entrance. (Resubmission)

Background Site Location and Description The application is for the erection of single storey extension to north elevation and extended entrance foyer with alterations to existing car park, boundary wall and vehicle entrance, at 145 Wragby Road Lincoln. The premises is a two storey building which is individual in appearance with a mixture of projecting gables, pitch roofs and flats roofs, external walls are mainly rendered and painted with one elevation featuring timber cladding. A single storey pitched roofed detached rendered outbuilding is located adjacent to the northern boundary, which is to be demolished as part of the application. Site History Application LD12/0644/95 for the change of use of property from residential to day nursery, was determined via an appeal hearing (Ref: T/APP/M2515/A/96/268452/P4) due to the non determination of the application within the prescribed period by Lincoln City Council. The appeal was allowed, an application to award costs against the Council was made, in which the inspector determined it was not justified to award costs. Application 2014/0513/F for the erection of an extension to create a larger entrance foyer and to provide an additional space for children with a linked extension, was withdrawn by the agent. Case Officer Site Visit Case Officer Site visit undertaken on the 5th February 2015 8:30am to 9:20am and 13th February 2015 3:30pm till 4:30pm. Issues The main issues are considered to be as follows: 1) Accordance with National and Local Planning Policy 2) Impact on residential amenity 3) Impact on visual amenity of property and wider area 4) Highway safety, access and parking 5) Trees

Policies Referred to 1 Policy 34 - Design and Amenity Standards 2 Policy 64 - House Extensions, Domestic Garages and other

Developments within the Curtilage of a Dwelling

3 National Planning Policy Framework Consultations Consultations were carried out in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement, adopted May 2014. A further 14 day consultation period was undertaken with consultees who had previously commented on the application, for the revised site plan that was received. Responses Highways & Planning Lincolnshire County Council Councillor Maxwell Craig Brumby 5 Darwin Court

Lincoln Lincolnshire LN2 4RY

Mrs Bartlett 4 Carlyle Walk Lincoln Lincolnshire LN2 4PW

Mr D & Mrs J Simpson 6 Carlyle Walk Lincoln Lincolnshire LN2 4PW

Mr & Mrs Ormston 1A Carlyle Walk Lincoln Lincolnshire LN2 4PW

Mr & Mrs Callow 1 Carlyle Walk Lincoln Lincolnshire LN2 4PW

Representations from Neighbouring Residents Objections have been received from neighbouring residents and owners of properties on Carlyle Walk. The objections relate in the main to, parking, highway safety/ capacity, overlooking, felling of trees, intensification of the use of the property and visual amenity. Each point will be addressed within the main body of this report. Consideration of Issues

1) Accordance with National and Local Planning Policy/ Use of the property

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF outlines that “at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen

as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means:

approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh

the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. The application property is within a predominantly residential area as allocated within the City of Lincoln Local Plan Proposals Map adopted 1998. The principle use of the site was established under application LD12/0644/95 and The Planning Inspectorate hearing. Several of the objection letters received highlight concerns around the intensification of the use of the nursery. The design and access statement submitted as part of this application by the agent states ‘’ The proposal does not increase the numbers of staff and children attending the nursery nor does it increase the volume of vehicular traffic accessing the site’’ In response to the written representations received against the proposal the applicant has submitted further information to clarify their intentions, which is attached to this report. To directly quote from the applicants letter dated the 5th February 2015 ‘’ the purpose of the extension is to improve the service and facilities provided to our existing and future families. We are not requesting an increase in numbers’’ Therefore the application has been considered on the bases of the existing numbers of staff, children intake and users of the site. As the development is within a residential area Policies 34 is therefore relevant. Policy 34 – ‘Design and Amenity Standards’ states that development shall be granted for new buildings, extensions, alterations or refurbishment of existing buildings provided the scale, massing, height, design, external appearance and facing materials to be used in the development complement the architectural style and townscape character of the locality, and the siting and layout has a satisfactory physical and functional relationship to adjoining buildings and streetscape.

2) Impact on Residential Amenity of Nearby Properties To the north of the application is 1A Carlyle Walk, a two storey semi detached dwelling. The proposed gable end of the proposed extension would be located 1.8meters from the boundary with No.1A; the proposed entrance foyer would be located 12meters away from this boundary. The boundary between these properties is partly defined by a close boarded panelled timber fence and the applicants’ outbuilding brick wall, which is to be demolished as part of this proposal. The applicant is also proposing to reinstate the boundary treatment where the current outbuilding is located, to a height to match the existing timber boarded fencing. As the proposed extensions are single storeys and set back from the boundary it would not be considered overbearing, nor cause loss of light. Furthermore the proposed alterations on the boundary would not unduly exacerbate the existing relationship.

In terms of overlooking the proposed works includes the installation of a window within the gable of the extension and seven windows within the proposed foyer facing north. As the existing relationship allows for overlooking between the properties the addition of other windows would not be considered to exacerbate the existing relationship to an unduly harmful level. It is therefore considered that the residential amenities of the occupants of 1A Carlyle Road would not be unduly affected by the proposal. To the south of the site is Darwin Court, consisting of five two storey properties, 2 semis and 3 terraced. No.5 garden and the parking forecourt are adjacent to this boundary. The boundary is defined by an approximate 1.8m timber hit and miss fence, with sections featuring trellis projecting above. The proposed single storey entrance foyer to the north of the existing host property would not project beyond the established ridge height. Views of the proposal would be completely mitigated by the existing property. It is therefore considered that this extension would not have a detrimental impact in terms of residential amenity of the residents of Darwin Court. In terms of the proposed single storey extension, this would be located at the closest point approximately 18.5m to the boundary of No.5 and 28.5m to the property. The proposed single storey entrance extension projects 4m to the west of the host property and again would not project beyond the established ridge height. Views of the proposal would be completely mitigated by the existing property, when viewed within the curtilage of No.5 Users entering the parking forecourt and Numbers 1 and 2 Darwin court which are located approximately 31m away from the extension would experience views of the extension, however given the separation distance and boundary treatment mitigating views, it is considered this extension would neither appear overbearing nor cause loss of light. Therefore it is considered that the residential amenities of the occupants of Darwin Court and the users of the parking forecourt would not be unduly affected by the proposal. Other properties consulted as part of this application and objections received are located at various distances away, from a minimum of 36m increasing up to 50m from the extensions. Taking account these separation distances from this proposal, along with the several different types of boundary treatment mitigating views of the extensions. It is considered this proposal would not effect on the residential amenity of the occupants of these properties.

3) Impact on Visual Amenity of Property and Wider Area

The single storey extension located to the rear site would be constructed from wooden boarding, with a finish to match the existing wooden boarding on the host property, fiber cement slate tiles and white Upvc for the windows and doors windows. The proposed foyer would also be constructed in similar manor although the flat roof would be constructed from fiberglass. Additionally the applicant is also proposing to: resurface the car parking area in a permeable material, reduce sections of the boundary wall fronting Carlyle Walk and install metal railings above including installing an open barred metal pedestrian gate and rendering and repainting the remaining block wall. Given the extensions appropriate design and materials proposed, it is considered the extensions would not be harmful to visual amenity. The proposed works to the boundary

wall fronting Carlyle walk would enhance the character area; the alterations would therefore be of benefit to the wider character area.

4) Highway Safety, Access and Parking

The applicant is proposing to increase the number of car parking spaces onsite through the demolition of an outbuilding within the existing parking area. The number of spaces will increase to 15 including 2 disabled spaces, 6 cycle spaces are also proposed. The access into the site will also be relocated, to allow better access and ingress from the site. As previously referred to within my report the applicant is not seeking to increase the number of staff employed or the Nursery intake, therefore the level of vehicle movements would be comparable to the current level experienced, notwithstanding this the applicant has agreed to sign a 106 agreement for the sum of £4000 towards implementing a Traffic Regulation order on Carlyle walk. An indicative layout map for a TRO for Carlyle walk has been attached to this report supplied by Lincolnshire County Highways Department, which entails extending the no waiting area and introducing a no waiting area between the hours of 8am -4pm Monday to Friday to the north east of Carlyle Walk. The TRO would be subject to a Highway Authority consultation with statutory consultees and local residents. The Lincolnshire County Council as Highway Authority has assessed the application and does not consider the proposal to be of detriment to highway safety or traffic capacity subject to conditions listed below and the signing of a 106.

5) Trees The application site is not within a conservation area nor is any of the trees on the site or within in the grass verge to the front of 145 Wragby Road covered by Tree Preservation Orders. A number of the objections received related to the possibility of a tree being felled within the grass verge on Carlyle Walk to facilitate the new vehicle access, which is under the Lincolnshire County Councils ownership. The initial site plan submitted as part of the application did not indicate the location of the tree in question. A revised proposed site plan submitted by the agent demonstrates the relationship between the tree and the proposed vehicle access. In which the vehicle access can be accommodated without felling the tree. In any case the tree has been assessed by the Councils Arboricultural Officer to determine its health and if the tree is worthily of protecting, within his report he recommends ‘’’Given that the tree leans over the highway and has suffered vehicle damage in the past, it may be regarded by the highways authority as a potential hazard to highway users. This factor combined with the presence of decay at various critical areas of the tree’s structure and it’s relatively low safe useful life expectancy leads me to conclude that it would be inappropriate to recommend this tree for protection under a Tree Preservation Order.’’

I have attached the Council Arboricultural Officer full response to this report.

As owners of the tree Lincolnshire County Council has indicated they would have no objection to the removal of the tree if it was deemed necessary. Conclusion. The presumption in favour of sustainable development required by the National Planning Policy Framework would apply to the proposal as there would not be conflict with Local

Plan Policies in respect of the aforementioned matters. Moreover, subject to Planning Conditions and agreements under Section 106 of the Planning Act, the proposal is considered acceptable. Financial Implications None. Legal Implications None. Application Negotiated Either at Pre-Application or During Process of Application Yes. Equality Implications None. Application Determined Within Target Date Yes. Recommendation It is the recommendation of officers that this application for planning permission be approved subject to the conditions below and the signing of a Section 106 agreement to secure a sum of £4000 to implement a Traffic Regulation Order for Carlyle walk. Conditions 3 years for implementation Accordance with plans Details of all external materials to be used in the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. The approved materials shall not be substituted without the written consent of the City Council as Local Planning Authority. The minimum width of the access shall be 4.5 metres. Before development commences on site further details relating to the vehicular access to the public highway, including materials, specification of works and construction method shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The approved details shall be implemented on site before the development is first brought into use and thereafter retained at all times. Within seven days of the new access being brought into use, the existing access onto Carlyle Walk shall be permanently closed in accordance with a scheme to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The arrangements shown on the approved plan Dwg PL 04 D dated 10th February 2015 for the parking/turning/manoeuvring/loading/unloading of vehicles shall be available at all times when the premises are in use. Details of safe and secure cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council. The approved details shall be provided on site prior to the completion of the development. The cycle parking shall be retained on site at all times. Work on site shall only occur between the hours of 0700hrs and 1800hrs Monday to Friday; 0700hrs to 1300hrs on Saturdays; and no work shall occur on site on Sundays or Public / Bank Holidays. Prior to the occupation of the extension the package of visual improvements to the boundary wall fronting Carlyle Walk detailed on drawing Dwg Pl 04 D shall be completed and maintained thereafter on site. Report by: Planning Manager

Site Location Plan

Existing Block Plan

Existing Elevations

Proposed Block Plan

Proposed Elevations

Proposed Floor Plan

Site Photos Locations

Site Photos

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Correspondence Received

Indicative layout - traffic regulation order

DATE OF SITE VISIT: 27th January 2015 SITE ADDRESS: Verge outside entrance to children’s nursery on Carlyle Walk. The address of the nursery is 145 Wragby Road, Lincoln. T1, T2, etc T1 SPECIES: Purple Plum TREE LOCATION: The tree is located within a tree lined, highway grass verge situated outside the children’s nursery on Carlyle Walk and directly opposite 2/4 Carlyle Walk. The tree and the highway verge are the responsibility of Lincolnshire County Council Highways Dept.

TREE DETAILS: Approximate Height: 5 metres. DBH: 290 mm Crown Spread Radius: North: 3.5 metres East: 3 metres South: 3 metres West: 2.5 metres The tree is a relatively small, mature specimen with a crown break at approximately 2.2 metres above ground level where the main trunk forks to produce two major limbs. The fork has an included union with decay present where 3 branches have been removed in the past at 2 metres above ground level on the west and south facing sides. Consequently this may have structurally weakened the union of the two major limbs. The tree leans eastwards over the carriageway and old wounds on that side of the tree appear to indicate that the tree has been struck several times in the past by high sided vehicles such as vans etc. There is also a basal wound on the west side of the main stem arising at ground level and extending some 300mm up the stem with decay present. The tree is not within a conservation area nor is it protected under a TPO. AMENITY VALUE: Using the Arboricultural Association approved ‘Helliwell System’ of Visual Amenity Valuation of Trees and Woodlands, I have evaluated this tree as follows: (i) Size………………………………………2 (ii) Useful Life Expectancy………………… 1 (iii) Importance of position in landscape…….. 2 (iv) Presence of other trees……………………2 (v) Relation to setting………………………...2 (vi) Form………………………………………1

(vii) Special Factors……………………………2 Total = 2 x 1 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 1 x 2 = 32 I therefore consider this tree to be of low amenity value. RECOMMENDATION:

Given that the tree leans over the highway and has suffered vehicle damage in the past, it may be regarded by the highways authority as a potential hazard to highway users.

This factor combined with the presence of decay at various critical areas of the tree’s structure and it’s relatively low safe useful life expectancy leads me to conclude that it would be inappropriate to recommend this tree for protection under a Tree Preservation Order.

________________________________________________________________________________

REPLACEMENT SPECIES: No.

Do you recommend a TPO to be placed on the trees? No

M.Albans Arboricultural Officer City of Lincoln Council 27/01/15