Agenda item

The Planning Manager:

 

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 within the south western corner of the wider redevelopment area encompassing the St. Marks Retail Park and Shopping Centre

 

c)    reported that the site was formerly occupied by the Homebase, Lidl Outlet and Topps Tiles units and part of the BHS unit having a surface parking area in the foreground

 

d)    highlighted that prior approval had already been granted for the demolition of the units which was now underway

 

e)    referred to application number 2018/0655/FUL for 1, 372 bed spaces of student accommodation which was considered at Planning Committee on 12 September 2018, with planning permission refused due to the following reason:

 

·         “the design of the proposal is contrary to Lincoln’s setting and character, and therefore contrary to Policies LP25, LP26, and LP29 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan”

 

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

 

g)    stated 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

 

h)    reported that access lead into the site for servicing purposes although it was primarily for the collection of refuse from storage areas adjacent and the drop off point for students

 

i)     highlighted that between the student accommodation 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

 

j)     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.

 

k)    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

l)     referred to the update sheet which contained an additional neighbour response received in respect of the proposed development

 

m)  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.

 

n)    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.

 

Brian Kelly, representing the applicant, addressed Planning Committee in support of the proposed development, covering the following main points:

 

·         The applicant was disappointed that planning permission had been refused previously.

·         The applicant had listened to the points made by members at that time in relation to the design of the proposed development given its prominent position.

·         This revised planning application addressed the issues raised.

·         This proposal was the start of a long term investment scheme in the city.

·         It involved transformation of the area into vibrant/sustainable developments including affordable housing, retail, and restaurant facilities.

·         It was the first step to the regeneration of St Marks.

·         The next phase would go ahead from the year 2020 once relevant leases had expired.

·         New purpose built student accommodation was required in the city to provide for significant growth of the University.

·         Purpose built student accommodation reduced the impact from houses in multiple occupation.

·         Since the refusal of the last planning application, a great deal of time had been spent liaising with planning officers/giving a presentation to members in order to arrive at this modified scheme.

·         Student accommodation was welcomed as close to the University complex as possible.

·         This scheme would provide local employment.

·         Local contractors/suppliers would be used.

·         There would be a total of £150m worth of investment in this scheme.

·         It provided economic benefits for students and offered further development in terms of affordable housing, restaurants and retail outlets in future phases.

·         He hoped the revised planning application would be supported.

 

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

 

·         The design of the revised proposal was more acceptable reflecting its prominent location.

·         Although the design of a building was subjective and would be judged by personal opinion, considerable effort had been made to amend the design of this planning application to meet the needs of Planning Committee and the standards the area deserved.

·         Planning Committee wanted to see more high class planning applications in future reflective of their position in the city.

 

RESOLVED, that authority be delegated to the Planning Manager to grant planning permission subject to the receipt of the final response from the Highway Authority and any relevant planning conditions, as well as the issues covered by the planning conditions listed below:

 

• Time Limit;
• Approved Plans and Documents (including phasing);
• Contaminated Land;
• Archaeology;
• Construction Management (including delivery times and working hours, construction access and the location of site compounds);
• Provision of Fire Hydrants and Access for firefighting appliances;
• Future Development Wide and Building Management (security and safety of occupants);
• Temporary Fencing and Enclosures (during construction);
• Surface Water Drainage;
• Foul Water Drainage;
• Building Materials (including hard surfaces and boundary treatments);
• Large Scale Details of Shopfront Façades;
• Ecological Enhancement;
• Noise and Air Quality Mitigation to Buildings;
• Hard and Soft Landscaping;
• Travel Plan;
• Flood risk mitigation, including floor levels;
• Street Furniture and Signage;
• Cycle Storage;
• Plant and Machinery;
• Kitchen Extraction; and
• Temporary Uses / Structures.