Agenda item

The Principal Planning Officer:

 

a.    advised that planning permission was sought for the demolition of an existing Public House and the erection of a three storey building to accommodate 47 bedrooms with en suite bathrooms for use as student accommodation, with associated access, car parking and landscaping (revised plans)

 

b.    described the application site as roughly square in shape occupied by the two-storey Golden Cross Public House built in 1959, located to the eastern side of High Street at the junction with Queen Street, with commercial properties in all directions and residential development close by to the north, south and east

 

c.    highlighted that only the access for the development from Queen Street was fixed in this application, all other details including the layout of the site; and scale of the buildings were indicative at this stage along with the appearance of the buildings and any landscaping, to be agreed through subsequent application(s) for Reserved Matters

 

d.    highlighted that the building was prominent in its locality, within the Gowts Bridge Conservation Area, shown within the Local Plan, and not allocated for a specific use

 

e.    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 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 LP25   The Historic Environment

·         Policy LP26   Design and Amenity

·         Policy LP29   Protecting Lincoln's Setting and Character

·         Policy LP33   Lincoln's City Centre Primary Shopping Area and Central Mixed Use Area

·         Policy LP35   Lincoln's Regeneration and Opportunity Areas

·         Policy LP36   Access and Movement within the Lincoln Area

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

                       

f.     outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

g.    referred to the update sheet which contained a consultation response from NHS England requesting a contribution towards healthcare, a further response from Lincoln Civic Trust and a local resident, and a revised suggested officer recommendation taking into account measures to procure an S106 financial contribution in relation to health infrastructure

 

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

 

·         The Principle of the Development and Service Provision;

·         The Design of the Proposals and their Visual Impact;

·         The Implications of the Proposals upon Amenity;

·         Sustainable Access, Highway Safety and Traffic Capacity;

·         Archaeology;

·         Drainage;

·         Land Contamination and Air Quality; and

·         The Planning Balance.

 

i.      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 any of the three strands of sustainability that would apply to development as set out in the planning balance.

·         There would not be harm caused by approving the development so it was the recommendation of officers that the application should benefit from planning permission for the reasons identified in the report and subject to the planning conditions outlined within it.

 

Councillor J Hanrahan, Chair, highlighted to members that the planning application before them tonight was for outline approval to consider the principle of the development and access point into the site only. All other details including the layout of the site; and scale of the buildings were indicative at this stage to be agreed through subsequent application(s) for Reserved Matters.

 

Councillor Helena Mair, addressed Planning Committee as Ward Advocate in respect of the proposed development, covering the following main points:

 

·         She thanked members of Planning Committee for allowing her the opportunity to speak.

·         She represented the residents of Park Ward and in particular around the area of Queen Street.

·         She was pleased to see revisions having been made to the original plans following concerns raised by local residents.

·         She had concerns regarding the size of the three storey development from the Queen Street side.

·         The entrance to Queen Street was narrow, occupied by low two storey houses, the three storey development on that side would create a dark and overbearing situation.

·         The scale of the building was out of proportion with everything else in the area.

·         Even taking into account the revised plans with dropped elevations to the roof form, the proposed development was still taller than others in the area.

·         This council had a pledge to build a thriving community with a sense of belonging.

·         The scheme included 47 bedrooms.

·         Residents considered that the impact on people living here in an already densely populated area would be adversely affected by the size/massing of the proposed building going into Queen Street.

 

Mr Chris Henderson, agent, addressed Planning Committee in support of the planning application on behalf of the applicant, covering the following main points:

 

·         He thanked members of Planning Committee for allowing him the opportunity to speak.

·         He highlighted that the reasons behind the need for the development needed to be explained.

·         Pubs were closing down due to changes in the dynamics of the city.

·         Beer sales were at a ten year low due to high taxes and cheap alcohol made available at supermarkets.

·         The city’s economy as a whole was a striving success due to the existence of the University and was set to further prosper.

·         The introduction of a medical school would certainly help.

·         Local business would benefit from the proposed development in terms of footfall and additional spend in the area.

·         There had been objections regarding the design of the building. Lengthy conversations had been held to alleviate concerns and significant changes made to the plans to the satisfaction of planning/conservation officers.

·         The development was appropriate to its location and area.

·         The height of the building had been reduced to make it appropriate to the Conservation area.

·         Other streets had similar arrangements on street corners with developments reducing from three storey going down to two storeys.

·         He hoped members would support the proposals in the interest of benefit/prosperity of the local area and community.

 

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail.

 

Individual members raised concerns in respect of the proposed development in relation to:

 

·         The status of the planning application as applied for in indicative form. A full application would have allowed members to consider the proposals as a whole.

·         The existing area already densely populated with narrow streets.

·         Whether the area now had enough student accommodation and should be used instead for social housing for local people.

·         Scale, density and massing of the building taking up the whole of the site to the front rather than being set back.

·         Issues with access to the parking area at the back of the development due to the narrow road.

·         Whether there were sufficient kitchens for the students to share within the proposed development.

·         Lack of car parking space.

·         The fixed access for the application was related to the number of people living in the building, yet we were being asked to consider these remaining details as an indicative planning application

 

Other members offered support to the principle of the proposed development in terms of:

 

·         The need for student accommodation.

·         The public house having previously opened and closed many times due to lack of viability.

·         Increasing student accommodation in the area having not reached saturation point in terms of Article 4.

·         The realisation that had members been asked to vote on a full application, support would have been offered in terms of it providing purpose built student accommodation to relieve pressure on social housing.

 

Members asked for clarification regarding the response made by Lincolnshire County Council requesting existing accesses onto Queen Street and High Street to be permanently closed and returned to footway construction within seven days of the new access being brought into use.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that this request related to existing dropped kerbs being closed off when not required to maintain one access point into the site.

 

A motion was proposed by Councillor Hewson and seconded by Councillor C Burke that the planning application be approved as follows in principle, with fixed access via Queen Street:

 

That authority is delegated to the Planning Manager to finalise the planning conditions listed below and the obligation necessary to procure the s.106 financial contribution in relation to health infrastructure. However, should the applicant subsequently fail to meet these requirements, it could undermine the principles of sustainable development outlined in the Framework. As such, if the S106 agreement has not been signed within six months of the date of Planning Committee, and there is no reasonable prospect of doing so, the Planning Manager will refer the application back to the Planning Committee for further consideration by Members.”

 

·         Timeframe for Permission (Inclusive of Reserved Matters);

·         Reserved Matters;

·         Approved Plans;

·         Archaeology;

·         No Demolition of Existing Building Before a Scheme has been Approved and a Contract Agreed for its Development;

·         Noise Assessment for Construction of Building;

·         Contaminated Land;

·         Closure of Existing Access;

·         Cycle Storage;

·         Highways Construction Management Plan;

·         Working and Delivery Hours;

·         Arrangements for Management of the Occupation of the Building;

·         External lighting scheme;

·         Refuse Storage / Collection;

·         Electric Vehicle Recharge Points;

·         Boundary Walls and Fences; and

·         Drainage Works (Surface and Foul Water).

The motion was put to the vote and was lost.

 

A motion was proposed by Councillor Tweddle and seconded by Councillor Strengiel to defer the planning application. 

 

The Planning Manager offered the following points of clarification in relation to potential deferment:

 

·         The planning application in front of members was in outline form.

·         The application would need to be withdrawn and resubmitted if required as a full application, however, it was within the gift of the applicant only to do this.

·         Should the application be deferred tonight it would still be negotiated under the parameters of the existing outline form.

 

The motion to defer the planning application was put to the vote and was lost.

 

A motion was proposed by Councillor Bushell and seconded by Councillor Hills to refuse planning permission, put to the vote, and;

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused.

 

Reason: Insufficient information had been submitted to demonstrate that development in principle could be accommodated within the site without unduly harming residential amenity and the character and appearance of the Gowts Bridge Conservation Area, due to scale, mass and design.