N/153/00040/25: 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 and Mrs P Cunliffe

Location:                           350 Drummond Road, Skegness 

Recommendation:              Approval with Conditions

Officer:                              Stephanie Watson

Application Type:            Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                         Planning Permission - Extension to existing dwelling to provide additional living accommodation and installation of a flue to the maximum height of 4.6 metres.

Location:                          350 DRUMMOND ROAD, SKEGNESS

Applicant:                        Mr & Mrs P Cunliffe

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission – Extension to existing dwelling to provide additional living accommodation and installation of a flue to the maximum height of 4.6 metres at 350 Drummond Road, Skegness.

The application was presented to the Planning Committee on the basis of

the finely balanced issues and following concerns and requests by Ward

Member, Councillor Dick Edgington.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

·       Impact on the character of the area

·       Impact on amenity

·       Flood risk

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

Stephanie Watson, Planning Officer, detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, page 59 of the report refers.

Councillor Dick Edginton spoke as Ward Member.

Members were invited to put their questions to the speaker.

-       When asked whether Councillor Edginton knew of any agreement with the neighbours with regards to encroaching on their land, he advised that he was not aware of any.

-       Following a request for clarification of the holiday home status of the property, Councillor Edginton advised Members that the property was owned by a family from London and had been used occasionally as a holiday home.  The owners now wanted to relocate and occupy the property on a permanent basis.

Following which, the application was opened for debate.

-       A Member queried whether the neighbour’s land that was included in the application was a standard procedure.  The Development Management Lead Officer advised that he was not aware of any intended encroachment, and it was a matter between the two parties.

-       Referring to the guttering that was hanging over the neighbour’s land, a Member queried whether it was acceptable that the drainage coming off the roof of the applicant’s property should be going into the neighbour’s property.  The Development Management Lead Officer explained that the applicant had advised that the new external wall was set to enable the guttering to hang over the applicant’s land.

-       A discussion ensued regarding the height of the extension, with the Planning Officer advising Members that it was slightly higher than the neighbours’ extension. 

Following a query regarding permitted development, the Deputy Development Manager explained that in consideration of a rear extension on a semi-detached dwelling, an extension up to 3 metres from the rear wall of the dwelling with a height restriction of 4 metres was allowed for it to be classed as permitted development. Members were further advised that the height of the new extension was within the height limit, however the distance from the rear wall was greater than 3 metres.

Following which, the application was Proposed for approval in line with officer recommendation

-       Following a query on the pitch of the roof, the Development Management Lead Officer provided Members with some background information and informed them that a flat roof was not possible, which had led to the current scheme. He explained that whilst a shallower pitch would be possible, it would not be the same aesthetically.

Following which, the application was Seconded for approval in line with officer recommendation.

Following which, the application was Proposed for refusal against officer recommendation.

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for approval in line with officer recommendation was carried.

Vote:         8 In favour            1 Against              1 Abstention

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved subject to the following conditions: