Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 16th August 2017 5.30 pm

Venue: Committee Rooms 1-2, City Hall

Contact: Ali Hewson, Democratic Services Officer  (01522 873370)

Items
No. Item

27.

Confirmation of Minutes - 19 July 2017 pdf icon PDF 148 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2017 be confirmed.

28.

Declarations of Interest

Please note that, in accordance with the Members' Code of Conduct, when declaring interests members must disclose the existence and nature of the interest, and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) or personal and/or pecuniary.

Minutes:

Councillor Bob Bushell declared a Personal Interest with regard to the agenda item titled '10-12 Lindum Terrace and 30-32 Sewell Road, Lincoln'.

 

Reason, He was known to the applicant, however, not as a close associate and had in no way predetermined his interest on the application to be considered.

 

Councillor Ronald Hills declared a Personal Interest with regard to the agenda item titled '10-12 Lindum Terrace and 30-32 Sewell Road, Lincoln'.

 

Reason: He was known to the applicant, however not as a close associate and had in no way predetermined his interest on the application to be considered.

 

29.

Work to Trees in City Council Ownership pdf icon PDF 136 KB

Minutes:

The Arboricultural Officer:

 

a.    advised Members of the reasons for proposed works to tree’s in City Council ownership and sought consent as per Appendix A of his report

 

b.    explained that Ward Councillors had been notified of the proposed works

 

c.    stated that in some cases it was not possible to plant a tree in the exact location and in these cases a replacement would be replanted in the vicinity.

 

RESOLVED that the works set out in the schedule at Appendix A attached to the report be approved.

30.

Applications for Development

31.

10-12 Lindum Terrace and 30-32 Sewell Road, Lincoln pdf icon PDF 427 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Principal Planning Officer:

 

a.    described the location of the application site situated in uphill Lincoln occupying an area of land on Sewell Road and Lindum Terrace

 

b.    outlined the proposals for the Medical Village

 

c.    explained that there were two distinct phases to the proposals, the first was to renovate and extend the existing buildings and the second was linking the two groups of buildings to house a much larger amount of floor space for a ground floor car park

 

d.    provided details of the policies pertaining to the application as follows:-

 

·         Policy LP1 – A Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development 9

·         Policy LP2 – The Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy 10

·         Policy LP5 – Delivering Prosperity and Jobs 22

·         Policy LP9 – Health and Wellbeing 31

·         Policy LP13 – Accessibility and Transport 40

·         Policy LP14 – Managing Water Resources and Flood Risk 44

·         Policy LP16 – Development on Land affected by Contamination 47

·         Policy LP21 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity 54

·         Policy LP25 – The Historic Environment 60

·         Policy LP26 – Design and Amenity 63

·         Policy LP36 – Access and Movement within the Lincoln Area 85

·         The National Policy Framework

 

d.    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

e.    referred to the update sheet which contained further responses received in respect of the proposed development.

 

f.     highlighted the main issues relating to the proposals as follows:-

 

·         Previous Consideration at the Planning Committee and Subsequent Events

·         The Principle of the Development;

·         The Impact of the Design of the Proposals;

·         The Implications of the Proposals upon Amenity;

·         Other Matters;

·         The Planning Balance

 

g.    concluded that:

 

·         The p  resumption in favour of sustainable development required by the National Planning Policy Framework would apply to the proposals as there would not be conflict with three strands of sustainability that would apply to development as set out in the planning balance. Therefore there would be no harm caused by approving the development.

·         It was considered that the application should benefit from planning permission for the reasons outlined in the report and subject to the conditions outlined within the officers report and a legal agreement to ensure that the parking not specifically allocated for staff within the site was maintained for short stays and free of charge.

 

Mr Mike Lewis, a local resident addressed Planning Committee in objection to the proposed development covering the following points:-

 

·         He was a retired consultant having served 35 years working in intensive care.

·         The development would be functioning as a hospital irrespective of the fact it had been described as a ‘Medical Village.’

·         There would be 3 operating theatres with a total of 25 beds.

·         The proposed development was 50% larger than the BMI Hospital.

·         There would be in excess of 150+ staff employed at the establishment.

·         There would be only13 designated staff car parking spaces.

·         Car parking would be an issue due to lack of spaces and 50-60 members of staff would be expected to look for a parking space.

·         He felt that the development would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

32.

Birchwood Leisure Centre, Birchwood Avenue, Lincoln pdf icon PDF 123 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Planning Manager:

 

a.    described the location of the development which was to the east of Birchwood Avenue bounded by the Sure Start Children’s Centre to the south and a dentist practise to the north, currently consisting of the leisure centre, social club, changing rooms and car park

 

b.    advised that approval was sought to upgrade and improve the facilities through significant internal and external alterations to redefine and refresh the identity of the centre

 

c.    provided details of the policies pertaining to the application as follows:

 

·         National Planning Policy Framework

·         Policy LP1 - A Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

·         Policy LP5 - Community Facilities

·         Policy LP26 - Design and Amenity

 

d.    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

e.    referred to the update sheet which contained a further response received from the Councils’ Pollution Control Officer

 

f.     advised members of the main issues to be considered by the application as follows:

 

·         Accordance with National and Local Planning Policy

·         Impact on Amenity of Neighbouring Uses

·         Impact on Visual Amenity

·         Highway Safety, Access and Parking

 

g.    concluded that:

 

·         The scheme would improve the visual amenity of the existing property and wider area which would provide a modernised frontage onto Birchwood Avenue

·         A slight increase in activity would not have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties or immediate area and would bring further benefits to the locality.

·         The proposals were therefore entirely in accordance with the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Members made comments and asked the following questions:-

 

·         Would electric vehicle re charging points be provided as requested by the Pollution Control Officer?

·         Clarification was requested as to why there were internal visuals?

·         Would there be a planting scheme to replace those trees removed from the north east area of the site near the RAF Squadron memorial?

 

The Planning Manager offered the following points of clarification to members:

 

·         The installation of electric vehicle re-charging points was being costed to be included within the development in due course.

·         It was part of the part of the planning process in this case to include internal visuals for information of member’s completeness.

 

The Arboricultural Officer provided clarification to members on the following points:

 

·         That there would be a future planting scheme in the north east area of the site.

·         Most of the trees next to the existing memorial would not be affected

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:-

 

Standard Conditions

 

01)      The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

           

            Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

02)      With the exception of the detailed matters referred to by the conditions of this consent, the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings listed within Table A below.

 

            The works shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and in any other approved documents  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

33.

The Performance of the Council in Appeals Decided by the Planning Inspectorate pdf icon PDF 851 KB

Minutes:

The Planning Manager:

 

a.    advised members that this report referred to the performance of the Council at Appeals and included details of the appeal decisions that had been received since 01 January 2015 to 01 August 2017

 

b.    explained that there were 3 key component reasons that were required to be stated to warrant refusal of planning permission:-

 

·         The issue

·         The harm it caused

·         Which planning policy it was contrary to

 

c.    stated that the Council had received 30 appeals following decisions to refuse applications for planning permission, advertisement consent and other work carried out in that period, the full list of which was included as an appendix to the officer’s report

 

d.    outlined the list of appeals that were carried out.

 

e.    concluded that this update was for members’ information and sought comments regarding the content of the report.

 

Members made comments and asked the following questions:-

 

·         What was the significance of the 21 metres distance between properties?

·         With regards to applications that were refused by the Planning Inspectorate, was the Council awarded costs?

·         In relation to the HIMO on 36 Yarborough Road, did this decision affect other applications?

 

The Planning Manager offered the following points of clarification to members:

 

·         The preferred separation distance of 21 metres wasn’t formal policy, however in due course supported planning guidance would be helpful on this matter to make it clear. Views would differ regardless in each individual planning application which was to be assessed on its own merit.

·         The Council had not been awarded costs for any of the decisions listed in the report. Costs would also depend on the impact on the developer and the delay caused by the refusal/appeal.

·         The HIMO on 36 Yarborough Road related to existing use. The decision made did not impact on Article 4 and did not set a precedent in the approval of further planning applications for Sui Generis HIMO’s in the West End.

 

RESOLVED that the report be noted.