Agenda item

(Councillor Kath Brothwell was not present at the meeting for this item).

 

The Principal Planning Officer:

 

a)    Advised that planning permission was sought for the demolition of existing buildings and development of the site for purpose built student accommodation with commercial floor space, car parking, cycle storage and associated landscaping.

 

b)    Described the location of the application site which was within the western corner of the wider redevelopment site encompassing the St. Marks Retail Park and Shopping Centre.

 

c)    Reported that the site was currently occupied by the Homebase, Lidl Outlet and Topps Tiles units and part of the BHS unit and surface parking area in the foreground of these units.

 

d)    Highlighted that prior approval had already been granted for the demolition of the units.

 

e)    Highlighted that the outline planning application for this part of the site included a portion of the 150 residential units approved across the development site and up to 1,100 student units, with some commercial uses at ground floor to the northern perimeter.

 

f)     Reported that the application was for the erection of ten blocks of student accommodation, varying in height from four to ten storeys in height, for a total of 1,372 bed spaces in clusters with shared living spaces.

 

g)    Reported that the main vehicular access for the site would be from the current service yard access at Firth Road, which joined Tritton Road at the traffic light controlled intersection with Beevor Street. The access would lead into the site for servicing purposes but would be primarily for the collection of refuse from storage areas adjacent and the drop off point for students.

 

h)    Reported that between the blocks would be a series of spaces with seating, landscaping and cycle stores, which would ultimately permit public access from outside the site through to the remainder of the St Marks development.

 

i)     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 LP5: Delivering Prosperity and Jobs;

·         Policy LP6: Retail and Town Centres in Central Lincolnshire;

·         Policy LP7: A Sustainable Visitor Economy;

·         Policy LP9: Health and Wellbeing;

·         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 LP21: Biodiversity and Geodiversity;

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

·         Policy LP25: The Historic Environment;

·         Policy LP26: Design and Amenity;

·         Policy LP29: Protecting Lincoln’s Setting and Character;

·         Policy LP31: Lincoln’s Economy;

·         Policy LP33: Lincoln’s City Centre Primary Shopping Area and Central Mixed Use Area;

·         Policy LP36: Access and Movement within the Lincoln Area;

·         Policy LP37: Sub-division and multi-occupation of dwellings within Lincoln;

·         National Planning Policy Framework.

 

j)     Outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise;

 

k)    Reported that a full Environmental Impact Assessment had been carried out.

 

l)     Advised members of the main issues to be considered as part of the application as follows:

 

·         The Outline Planning Application and Consideration of Central Lincolnshire Local Plan Policy;

·         Environmental Impact Assessment;

·         The Principle of the Development;

·         Sustainable Access, Highway Safety and Traffic Capacity;

·         The Impact of the Design of the Proposals;

·         The Implications of the Proposals upon Amenity;

·         Other Matters;

·         The Planning Balance.

 

m)  Reminded members that the Council, as local planning authority, was duty bound to provide housing delivery information to the government in order to demonstrate that the Central Lincolnshire Authorities were making good on projected housing delivery. The delivery of student accommodation in the past three years, and in going forward, would be important when completing these returns to government, which would count towards the City of Lincoln’s housing delivery contributions.

 

n)    Reported that a further condition was recommended to seek confirmation of the final use prior to the occupation of the building in respect of the commercial premises to the northern edge of the site, within Block A.

 

o)    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 and it was considered that the application should benefit from planning permission for the reasons identified in the report and subject to the conditions included within it.

 

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail, during which the following comments and points were noted:

 

·         regeneration of this site was supported, however, the design of the proposal in its current form was not in keeping with the area, lacked any imagination and, given its prominent location, Lincoln deserved better;

·         the Civic Trust had objected to the application, stating that the buildings were too overpowering for the site. Further high-rise buildings in this area would obscure the views of Lincoln Cathedral and Lincoln Castle;

·         there was no provision for car parking on the site for student accommodation and it was unclear how students could be prevented from bringing their own vehicles with them;

·         this application was concerning in the context of the proposed development of the Western Growth Corridor and the resulting increase in traffic, with traffic using the roundabout adjacent to the site already often at a standstill during busy periods;

·         the close proximity of the site to the University Bridge, the east-west link and the Western Growth Corridor would be catastrophic for the traffic in this area. An independent traffic monitoring survey had been commissioned by a member which indicated that by 2024 the whole area would be gridlocked. The project itself was worthy of support, but it was in the wrong location;

·         taking into account the commercial units already operating on the site, there would be much less traffic generated from the site should the application be successful than there was currently;

·         students should not bring their own vehicles with them if they knew that there was nowhere to park onsite, with the site being in close enough proximity to the city centre and the University campus to enable them to walk or cycle. However, there was nothing to stop students bringing their own vehicles and in doing so this would impact on the amenities of existing neighbouring residential areas in respect of car parking, which was already limited in certain areas. It was suggested that the introduction of funding for a residential parking scheme may address this;

·         this proposed development showed no comparison or resemblance to other buildings in the immediate area such as the Gateway or the University building. The current design gave the impression of industry or office blocks whereas this was supposed to be a residential development which the people of Lincoln would have to live with. Given that this was a prime site and was essentially a gateway to the city, more was expected in respect of the standard of design;

·         there was no mention of increased facilities for medical or dental facilities associated with the development. It was expected that 1,372 student units would put some pressure on existing amenities in this respect;

·         more student accommodation was required in the city to meet the increasing demand of the expanding University;

·         comments received from the Civic Trust and Natural England were concerning in respect of the proposal;

·         the main University building opposite the application site reflected modern Lincoln and a modern style in keeping with that area, whereas the design of the proposed development as per the application did not meet the same standards;

·         the design of a building was subjective and would be judged by personal opinion, with some people not necessarily in favour of the modern buildings already in place adjacent to the site;

·         the proposal had less of an imposing impact due to it being further away from the highway, whereas existing taller buildings in the area were located much closer to the highway and had still been granted planning permission;

·         the design of the application provided links to the city’s industrial past, with red brick used on purpose as opposed to cladding or glass frontage to be more in keeping with materials used in traditional residential dwellings in Lincoln;

·         the proposal represented a high density development which attempted to squeeze as many people in as possible and it was questionable as to whether this would be acceptable should it have been a traditional residential development;

·         the proposed development would take approximately three years to complete, meaning that a key part of the entrance and exit to the city would be a building site for a considerable time, with students living amongst this onsite for one or two years of the development;

·         despite there being no parking provision onsite, 1,372 people would still be required to cross a busy road either to the University campus or the city centre;

·         part of the wider project, which included retail outlets and a privately operated car park, would attract traffic to the area;

·         size and massing of the proposed development was immaterial at this stage of consideration due to this having been approved as part of the outline planning consent.

 

The Planning Manager provided clarity in respect of those matters that had previously been approved as part of the outline planning consent, which included the size of buildings and overall massing of the development. In addition, as part of the wider highway implications, an agreement was in place to retain an area of land to allow for further widening to occur on the east-west link, as also included in the outline planning consent.

 

The Planning Manager added that design was a legitimate material planning consideration. He respectfully disagreed with members’ negative comments regarding the design of the application, stating that the design had been undertaken in such a way to purposely make the buildings separate from those iconic buildings of the University campus and instead provide more of an emphasis and reference to the lower part of the city, encompassing the red brick materials that many dwellings in Lincoln had been built with. The ‘clean-line’ design of the proposed buildings was a modern phenomenon but he was of the opinion that its design, and the materials proposed to be used, did relate to Lincoln. He also explained that the design took into account the perspective from the top of the hill looking south of the city and the impact of the development, with the predominant colour being that of red brick from existing dwellings. The application therefore sought to compliment this view and minimise the impact from the hillside.

 

The Planning Manager highlighted that the location of the site was within the expanding city centre, with sustainable links to the city and the University. There was nowhere on this site for onsite parking, with concerns expressed that there would be a knock-on effect for residential on-street parking. The nearest residential area with on-street parking was some distance away from the site, which therefore made it unlikely that students would seek to use on-street parking to park their vehicles when living in this accommodation.

 

RESOLVED, that the application be refused.

 

Reason for refusal – The design of the proposal was contrary to Lincoln’s setting and character: and therefore contrary to policies LP25, LP26 and LP29 of the central Lincolnshire local Plan.