Agenda item

The Planning Manager:

 

a.    advised that planning permission was sought for:

 

·         The erection of 325 dwellinghouses, including 8 flats, facilitated by the demolition of existing flats known as Garfield View and Woodburn View.

·         Associated infrastructure and external works including new footpath link to Clarendon Gardens, the provision of new parking bays to Garfield Close and Woodburn Close and hard and soft landscaping and children's play area (revised plans).

 

b.    advised that the planning application brought together two parcels of land in separate ownership as detailed within associated plans shown in the officers report

 

c.    described the location of the site situated within Ermine West to the north of the city, adjoining development to the south within the residential streets which ran perpendicular to Queen Elizabeth Road and between the main north-south routes of Burton Road and Riseholme Road

 

d.    stated that the site shown as being allocated for housing in the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan

 

e.    reported that as outlined in the Lincoln Townscape Assessment, “the majority of the current townscape of the Ermine West Character Area dated from the building of the Ermine West Estate by the City of Lincoln Council in the Post-War Period [1946-1966 AD]”

 

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

 

·         Policy LP1: A Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

·         Policy LP2: The Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy

·         Policy LP3: Level and Distribution of Growth

·         Policy LP9: Health and Wellbeing

·         Policy LP10: Meeting Accommodation Needs

·         Policy LP11: Affordable Housing

·         Policy LP12: Infrastructure to Support Growth

·         Policy LP13: Accessibility and Transport

·         Policy LP14: Managing Water Resources and Flood Risk

·         Policy LP16: Development on Land affected by Contamination

·         Policy LP17: Landscape, Townscape and Views

·         Policy LP18: Climate Change and Low Carbon Living

·         Policy LP20: Green Infrastructure Network

·         Policy LP21: Biodiversity and Geodiversity

·         Policy LP24: Creation of New Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities

·         Policy LP26: Design and Amenity

·         Policy LP36: Access and Movement within the Lincoln Area

·         Policy LP49: Residential Allocations - Lincoln

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

 

7. outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

8. referred to the update sheet which contained revised site layout plans, together with a response received from the Highways Authority

 

9. advised members of the main issues to be considered as part of the application as follows:

 

 

10. concluded that:

 

 

Michael Foster, local resident, addressed Planning Committee in opposition to the proposed development, covering the following main points:

 

·         He lived at 35 Garfield Close.

·         The proposals would impact on his property.

·         His property shared a boundary with Garfield View which was to be demolished.

·         He had submitted a planning application in relation to adjacent land to Garfield View which had been acknowledged and accepted by the Planning Department.

·         He discussed his concerns at a meeting at Sudbrooke Community Centre on 18 September 2017.

·         He was asked whether he was for or against the planning application by council staff.

·         He was not for or against the proposals.

·         He had not received any consultation documents in accordance with planning regulations.

 

Members sought clarification as to whether Mr Foster had been consulted regarding the planning application before us this evening.

 

Kieron Manning, Planning Manager confirmed that a full consultation process had been conducted in accordance with planning regulations including the positioning of site notices.

 

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail, raising the following main points:

 

·         Widening of the cul-de-sac or a new entrance in/out of the development would be required.

·         Whether the development would cause sufficient impact on traffic to warrant refusal or whether it wouldn’t was a matter of perception.

·         Members were being asked to agree to a development with more than normally acceptable noise levels to avoid re-drawing of the scheme.

·         Concerns were raised regarding pollution levels with the proposed development being close to the by-pass.

·         The County Council was seeking funding to monitor a travel plan, which members had not had sight of in order to make a judgement regarding its content.

·         There was only one objection received from Garfield Close regarding the flats to be demolished.

·         Concerns were raised regarding traffic flow, parking, and access for emergency vehicles.

·         There was a lack of cycle routes

·         Poor bus services.

 

The Planning Team Leader offered the following points of clarification to members in response to queries raised:

 

·         Revised drawings had been requested to facilitate cul-de-sac widening to service the development.

·         A Noise Impact Assessment conducted by the Pollution Control Officer had concluded that internal noise levels to the worst affected homes were approximately 5 decibels above that recommended by him. Planning officers were of the opinion that this could be dealt with by further mitigation measures to the properties concerned.

·         There was a solid barrier of buildings at the northern edge of the development.

·         British standard noise levels were a guide to recommended ideals only. The noise levels in relation to this scheme must be balanced against the benefits of this critical number of new houses allocated as residential development in the Local Plan. It was the remit of members to determine whether they agreed with this balance.

·         A Travel Plan could only be afforded limited weight as it would be difficult to enforce and reliant on the good will of any applicant. It would not be possible to get every resident sign up to the Travel Plan.

·         Connectivity to and from the development would be ‘car born’ bearing in mind its location and the type of homes being built here. The Highways Authority had given its opinion that there would not be a severe impact on safety. It was accepted that there would be impact on traffic, however, not so harmful as to warrant refusal of planning permission.

·         In respect of air pollution, the city had achieved great strides in achieving improvements to air quality in the worst areas. The Pollution Control Officer had not raised any grave concerns and was satisfied pollution levels in the area were acceptable. Cars on the A46 were passing through an open space which resulted in less impact on pollution levels compared to urban areas.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be delegated to the Planning Manager to grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory signing of S106 agreements to secure financial contributions in relation to affordable housing, development of primary education, playing fields/play space and health provision, receipt of revised drawings for cul-de-sac widening and subject to the following conditions:

 

·         Timeframe of Permission (3 Years);

·         Approved Plans;

·         Schemes to provide Affordable Housing and deal with Impact upon NHS Services and Playing Fields/Play Space;

·         Materials of Construction (including surfacing);

·         Scheme of Landscaping and Boundary Treatments;

·         Scheme of Foul Drainage;

·         Contaminated Land Remediation;

·         Controls over Scheme for Site Surface Water Drainage;

·         Highway Access and Parking;

·         Revised Travel Plan before Implementation of the Development (if not amended);

·         Strategy for Site Lighting;

·         Finished Site Levels;

·         Scheme of Noise Mitigation;

·         Scheme for Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation including tree protection;

·         Scheme for Electric Vehicle Recharging Points

·         Hours of Construction Working and Deliveries; and Construction Management