Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 13 August 2017 be confirmed, subject to an amendment to reflect that Councillor Paul Gowen was in attendance.

Councillor Pete West declared a Personal Interest with regard to the agenda items titled ’18 Garfield Close, Lincoln’ and ’12 Webster Close, Lincoln’.

Reason – the applications were made by the Council’s Housing Department. He was the Executive Portfolio Holder for Housing and although had no direct involvement with these two properties and their respective applications, felt it necessary to declare an interest and leave the meeting room during their consideration to avoid any perception of predetermination.

The Planning Manager:

a.    described the location of the application site which extended from the corner of Park Street and Beaumont Fee to the west, Park Street to the north and Mint Lane to the east.

b.    explained that the proposed development had been split between a number of separate detached blocks. The existing two-storey west wing of the hall building would be retained and converted into eight studios. The existing hall at the east end of the site would be demolished and replaced with a five storey building, housing 34 studios. The existing Stokes Warehouse would be retained with an additional storey added to the roof, which would contain 23 studios. A new five storey building was proposed on the existing car park which would accommodate a further 47 studios. Finally, the existing school building fronting Beaumont Fee would be retained and would accommodate 21 studios.

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

·         National and Local Planning Policy:

-       Policy LP1: A Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development;

-       Policy LP25: The Historic Environment;

-       Policy LP26: Design and Amenity.

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 proposal as follows:

·         National and Local Planning Policy;

·         The Principle of Development;

·         Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area;

·         Residential Amenity;

·         Highways;

·         Archaeology;

·         Loss of Trees;

·         Refuse;

·         Contaminated Land.

g.    concluded that:

·         The principle of development of much of this land was established with the approval of permission in 2016. It was considered that the proposed scheme offered further benefit to that previously approved as it now planned for the inclusion of the former school building and the Stokes Warehouse. This scheme would deliver development of this whole corner of Beaumont Fee and Park Street and would sympathetically reuse existing buildings within the Conservation Area to one inclusive use.

·         The applicants had worked with the planning authority during the application process to take on board comments received from consultees and had subsequently reduced the height of the extension to the Stokes Warehouse and made amendments to the ground floor layout. With these changes and with the conditions referred to throughout the report, it was considered that the proposed development would be acceptable and in accordance with national and local planning policy.

Valerie Wilkinson, a local resident, addressed the Planning Committee in objection to the proposed development and made the following points:

·         this proposed development did not enhance the area and was an ugly design;

·         the proposed building in its entirety on that site was enormous;

·         she questioned whether 133 luxury student flats were really necessary when, in her view, a lot of student accommodation in the city was empty;

·         there was no evidence of car parking provision, with car parking being a huge problem in the city;

·         there was already huge congestion in that area, not just  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

(Councillors Gary Hewson and Eddie Strengiel were not present at the meeting during the consideration of this item).

The Planning Team Leader:

a.    described the location of the application site situated to the west of Poplar Avenue and north of Beevor Street adjacent to the existing Science and Innovation Park buildings.

b.    explained that outline planning permission was sought for the principle of development to erect two and three storey buildings to accommodate a mix of office, laboratory and higher end workshops as part of Phase 2 of the Lincoln Science and Innovation Park, with all matters being reserved.

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

·         National Planning Policy Framework;

·         Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan:

-       Policy W8: Safeguarding Waste Management Sites;

·         Central Lincolnshire Local Plan:

-       Policy LP1: A Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development;

-       Policy LP5: Delivering Prosperity and Jobs;

-       Policy LP31: Lincoln’s Economy Development.

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 proposal as follows:

·         National and Local Planning Policy;

·         Design;

·         Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage;

·         Contaminated Land;

·         Air Quality and Sustainable Transport;

·         External Plan Noise;

·         External Lighting;

·         Construction/Demolition Impacts;

·         Highways;

·         Archaeology.

g.    concluded that it was considered that, subject to the conditions set out within the report, the principle of development on this site to extend the current function of the Lincoln Science and Innovation Park would be acceptable. The proposed use would accord with the site’s allocation as a Strategic Employment Site within the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and formed a strategic overview which future applications could be assessed against.

RESOLVED that the application be granted conditionally.

Conditions

·         The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years;

·         The development to which this permission relates shall not be commenced until details of the reserved matters had been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority;

·         The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the plans;

·         Surface water drainage scheme for the site;

·         Standard Contaminated Land Conditions;

·         Construction environment management plan;

·         Scheme for the provision of an electric vehicle recharge point;

·         Programme of archaeological work;

·         Noise impact assessment report to identify any mitigation measures that were necessary to minimise the impact of offsite uses to the proposed use;

·         Prior to the installation of any stationary external plant or machinery on any plot, a noise impact assessment be submitted;

·         A scheme for the construction of an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point on Ruston Way;

·         Assessment of the offsite impact of all external lighting;

·         Carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment.

The Planning Team Leader:

a.    described the location of the application site situated in an area of land that was surrounded on all sides by residential development within the Park Ward area of the city. To the north was Portland Street, to the east was Trollope Street, to the south was Chelmsford Street and to the west was Sincil Bank.

b.    explained that the proposal was for six further dwellings which would be located immediately beside the existing dwellings within the site that had been granted permission previously. The central three dwellings would project forward of the remainder and incorporate a higher roof to the southern side to accommodate rooms in the roof. The roof of the remaining dwellings would be the same as the existing dwellings. In addition, the projecting façade of the existing dwellings would be refaced to match the proposed façades.

c.    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.    highlighted the main issues relating to the proposal as follows:

·         The Principle of the Development;

·         The Design of the Proposals and their Visual Impact;

·         Implications of the Proposals upon Amenity;

·         Sustainable Access, Highway Safety and Traffic Capacity;

·         Other Matters;

·         Planning Balance.

f.     concluded that the presumption in favour of sustainable development required by the National Planning Policy Framework would apply to the proposals as there would not be conflict with the three strands of sustainability that would apply to development as set out in the planning balance. Therefore, there would not be harm caused by approving the development. As such, it was considered that the application should benefit from planning permission for the reasons identified in the report and subject to the conditions outlined below.

Victoria Maw, a local resident, addressed the Planning Committee in objection to the proposed development and made the following points:

·         Trollope Street was too narrow for use as an access point for vehicles entering and exiting the proposed site. Residents’ gates from their gardens opened onto this street so she was concerned regarding safety, especially given that there were young families in the area;

·         the access road off Trollope Street was not owned by the developer so there would be no legal right of way for people living in the houses on the proposed site via this access point;

·         access via Chelmsford Street was also not appropriate due to Chelmsford  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

(Councillors Gary Hewson, Eddie Strengiel and Pete West were not present at the meeting during consideration of this item)

The Planning Manager:

a.    described the location of the application site which was located at 18 Garfield Close on Ermine West, to the north of the city.

b.    advised that the application was made by the City of Lincoln Council for a single storey side extension to the property at 18 Garfield Close. The extension would replace an existing store and would provide wheelchair access and ground floor facilities for the existing tenants.

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

·         Policy LP26 – Design and Amenity;

·         National Planning Policy Framework.

d.    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise.

e.    highlighted the main issues relating to the proposal as follows:

·         Impact on Visual Amenity;

·         Impact on Residential Amenity;

·         Impact on Highway Safety.

f.     concluded that the proposed extension would not cause unacceptable harm to visual amenity, residential amenity or highway safety, in accordance with the relevant policies of the National Planning Policy Framework and Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

RESOLVED that the application be granted conditionally.

Standard Conditions

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

·         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 listing within Table A of the report;

·         the works shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and in any other approved documents forming part of the application.

(Councillors Gary Hewson, Eddie Strengiel and Pete West were not present at the meeting during consideration of this item)

The Planning Team Leader:

a.    described the location of the application site which was 12 Webster Close in Lincoln.

b.    explained that the application was made by the City of Lincoln Council for a single storey side and front extension to 12 Webster Close. The extension would provide wheelchair access and ground floor facilities for the existing tenants.

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

·         Policy LP26 – Design and Amenity;

·         National Planning 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 works.

f.     highlighted the main issues relating to the proposal as follows:

·         Impact on Visual Amenity;

·         Impact on Residential Amenity;

·         Impact on Highway Safety.

g.    concluded that the proposed extension would not cause unacceptable harm to visual amenity, residential amenity or highway safety, in accordance with the relevant policies of the National Planning Policy Framework and Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

RESOLVED that the application be granted conditionally.

Standard Conditions

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

·         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 listing within Table A of the report;

·         the works shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and in any other approved documents forming part of the application.

The Planning Manager:

a.    presented a report which provided the Planning Committee with an opportunity to consider whether to formally confirm a temporary Tree Preservation Order on a beech tree at Stonefield Avenue made by the Planning Manager under delegated powers.

b.    reported that the applicant had submitted an application for works to fell a tree under the protection of a Tree Preservation Order in March 2017.

c.    explained that, in accordance with usual practice, the site was visited by the Council’s Arboricultural Officer to assess the health and amenity value of the tree. At the site visit it was apparent that the tree was not in the position of the tree identified on the formal Tree Preservation Order documentation produced in 1978. There was no tree in this position, with the tree on Stonefield Avenue, which was the subject of the application, being located 10 to 12 metres to the south of the tree plotted on the Tree Preservation Order. It was possible that this may have been a drafting error on the original document in 1978 but this meant that the tree in question was not therefore covered by a Tree Preservation Order.

d.    explained that the situation was further complicated by the unadopted status of the northern part of Stonefield Avenue where the tree was located. As a consequence of this, the responsibility for the tree, including liability, rested with the owner of 27 Stonefield Avenue who had made the application to remove it.

e.    reported that the tree was a mature beech specimen with a crown that spread between seven and nine metres from its centre. It was located within the non-adopted footway of Stonefield Avenue and approximately two metres from the front boundary wall of number 27.

f.     advised that a tree specialist appointed by the applicant proposed to fell the tree and replace it with a similar species. The report from the tree specialist also contained ‘favoured recommendations’ which would be to retain the existing tree, lift the crown to give a clearance beneath of approximately 4 to 5 metres, reduce the spread of the crown all round by 2.5 metres, thin the crown and remove branches to give clearance to two telephone lines.

g.    concluded that, due to its amenity value, the tree should be placed under the protection of a Tree Preservation Order, that consent to fell should be refused but that consent to undertake the crown lifting and thinning works, as set out above, should be granted.

Robin White, representing the applicant, addressed the Planning Committee and made the following points:

·         the tree’s roots were causing damage to the side and front garden walls of number 27 Stonefield Avenue and the public footpath at the front of the property;

·         there was a risk that underground services could also be potentially damaged by the tree’s roots, with the sewer, gas main and electrical main running underground within four metres of the tree;

·         the road was unadopted so full liability would rest with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.