Agenda item

The Planning Team Leader:

a.    described the application property, Newport Guest House, 26-28 Newport, Lincoln, formerly two three-storey mid terrace dwellings, converted to one property for use as a Guest House with a three storey extension to the rear of the property approved in December 2013 and implemented on site

b.    reported on the location of the premises adjoined by two other properties, 24 Newport, which was currently used as an Orthodontic Practice and 30 Newport in residential use

c.    stated that the site was situated within the Newport and Nettleham Road Conservation Area No. 9

d.    advised that planning permission was sought for the change of use of the property from Guest House (Use Class C1) to Student Accommodation (15 beds) (Use Class Sui Generis)

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

·         Policy LP26   Design and Amenity

·         Policy LP37   Sub-Division and Multi-Occupation of Dwellings within Lincoln

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

f.     outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

g.    referred to the update sheet which contained a map showing the location of Air B & B properties supplied by the agent to the application

h.    advised members of the main issues to be considered as part of the application to assess the proposal with regard to:

·         Policy Context

·         Lack of Demand and Over Concentration

·         Effect upon the Amenities of the Wider Area

·         Traffic and Parking

i.      concluded that:

·         The presumption in favour of sustainable development required by the National Planning Policy Framework would apply to the proposal as there would be no conflict with Local Plan Policies in respect of the principle of the development or in respect of any other implications associated with the nature of the use proposed.

·         Moreover, the use would be similar in nature to the previous in terms of its potential impacts so it would not be harmful in respect of the matters of amenity and access.

·         Similarly, there would not be harm to the immediate character of the area.

Mr James Rigby, Agent, addressed Planning Committee in support of the proposed development, covering the following main points:

·         He represented the applicant as a director of Globe Consultants.

·         The applicant couldn’t be present but had provided additional information for tonight’s meeting.

·         He would not go over the content of the planning application which had already been satisfactorily covered by the planning officer this evening.

·         The owner of the property was finding it difficult to operate the premises as a viable guest house business due to competition from local hotel chains in the city.

·         There had been an explosion of Air B & B rooms available on the internet. There were currently 58 available in the city with 151 bedrooms.

·         The owner could not sustain his guest house business and for this reason had submitted a planning application for a viable alternative in the form of student accommodation.

·         The premises were close to the Bishop Grosseteste University.

·         The applicant would control and manage the accommodation as a respectful property for mature students in its new form.

·         Students would be encouraged not to bring their cars and travel on foot to the University and City Centre.

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail.

Individual members made comments in relation to the proposed development as follows:

·         Trading conditions in the market place were not a planning consideration.

·         The area was slightly above the 10% threshold for provision of student housing, however, it was not far away from Bishop Grosseteste University.

·         The economic development of the city necessitated the need for student accommodation as long as areas did not become saturated.

·         It would be helpful if the premises could be occupied by mature students although not conditioned as such.

·         It was not right to put restrictions on the owner of the building, however, there must come a saturation point in the city in terms of student accommodation.

·         Businesses paying rates should be encouraged in the city in the interests of entrepreneurialism.

·         Purpose built student accommodation relieved the pressure on family homes.

·         The property was already out of scope for use as a family house due to its size.

·         Bishop Grosseteste University had a good reputation for student management.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions.

• Development to commence within 3 years
• Development to be carried out in accordance with the plans