N/084/02204/23: View the Plans and documents online, please click on the Application Number.  (Please note: If viewing as a pdf document, this hyperlink is not available).

Applicant:                          Mr P Joyce

Location:                           Manor Farm, Skegness Road, Hogsthorpe, Skegness, PE24 5NR

Recommendation:              Approval with Conditions

Officer:                              Lindsey Stuart

Application Type:         Remove or Vary a condition

Proposal:                     Section 73 application to vary condition no. 1 (approved plans) as imposed on reserved matters approval N/084/00438/19 for the erection of 10 no. houses.

Location:                      MANOR FARM, SKEGNESS ROAD, HOGSTHORPE, SKEGNESS, PE24 5NR

Applicant:                    Mr P Joyce

Members received an application to Remove or Vary a condition –Section 73 application to vary condition no. 1 (approved plans) as imposed on reserved matters approval N/084/00438/19 for the erection of 10 no. houses at Manor Farm, Skegness Road, Hogsthorpe, Skegness, PE24 5NR.

The application was subject to a call-in request by Councillor Roger Dawson due to the impact of the raising of the land on the amenity of the neighbours and concerns about overlooking and loss of privacy. Also, the need for landscaping and impact on flood risk.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

• The scope of the application
• Impact on neighbouring amenity and quality of development

Members were referred to the additional information contained on page 1 of the Supplementary Agenda.  

Lindsey Stuart, Senior Planning Officer, detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, pages 37 to 38 of the report refer.

Mr Phil Joyce spoke in support of the application.

Mr Jonathan Daws spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor Roger Dawson sent a written submission as Ward Member.

Members were invited to put their questions to the speakers.

-      In response to a Member’s query on the distance Mr Daws’ house was from the site and whether any windows of his property overlooked this, Mr Daws advised Members that his house backed on to the site and his kitchen and conservatory windows overlooked the site. 

-      Mr Daws further confirmed that he could see the site over the existing 6ft hedge and that he could also see the tyres of the construction vehicles.

Following which, the application was opened for debate. 

-      Further to a concern raised with regards to the run-off water and drainage and no response from the drainage company in the report, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there was an approved drainage scheme in place.  Members were further advised that the surface water from the houses would go towards the road and to a swale and the water at the back would go into the dyke between the two properties.

-      A Member further queried why there was no update with regards to the drainage since the land had been raised.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that there had been no objections received from Lincolnshire County Council or the drainage board.

-      When asked where the pictures referred were taken from, the Senior Planning Officer replied that this was from the Mr Daws’ kitchen window.

-      A Member queried how close the digger was to the house as it was appeared to be right outside.  The Senior Planning Officer responded that it looked close as it was right on the boundary, however advised that there would be a distance of 20m between the properties.

At this point in the meeting, the Development Management Lead Officer provided Members with some clarity on the relationship issue between the dwellings as approved as part of the application and the intervening use of the land.

-      Further to a Member’s query, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the landscaping strip had been conditioned.

-      A Member understood the neighbour’s concern, however acknowledged that My Joyce needed to raise the levels to help with potential flood risk.  With regards to the diggers working on site, it was highlighted that this was temporary whilst work was underway on the site.

Following which, the application was proposed and seconded for approval in line with officer recommendation.

Upon being put to the vote for approval, the vote was carried.

Vote:            6 In favour             4 Against             1 Abstention 

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:

$$