Agenda item

The Planning Team Leader:

 

a)    described the application site on land in front of Yarborough Leisure Centre allocated as a site for residential development in the adopted Local Plan, currently owned by the City of Lincoln Council with agreement to sell the land to the applicants

 

b)    advised that planning permission was sought by Bishop Grosseteste University (BGU) for the erection of a three storey building for new teaching space and erection of five buildings for student accommodation made up of three, four and five storeys, with vehicular access from Riseholme Road and provision of 40 car parking spaces

 

c)    provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:

 

·         National Planning Policy Framework; Chapters

 

Ø      2: Achieving Sustainable Development

Ø      4: Decision Making

Ø      5: Delivering a Sufficient Supply of Homes

Ø      6: Building a Strong Competitive Economy

Ø      11: Making Effective Use of Land

Ø      12: Achieving Well-Designed Places

 

·         Central Lincolnshire Local Plan. Policies

 

Ø      LP1: A Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Ø      LP10: Meeting Accommodation Needs

Ø      LP26: Design and Amenity

Ø      LP32: Lincoln’s Universities and Colleges

Ø      LP29: Residential Allocations-Lincoln

 

d)    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

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

 

·         National and Local Planning Policy

·         Visual Appearance and Impact

·         Impact on Adjacent Residents

·         Traffic and Pedestrian Safety

·         Trees, Open Space and Ecology

·         Drainage, Archaeology, Ground Conditions

 

f)     concluded that:

 

·         The application before Planning Committee had been carefully considered and was sensitive to the context of the local area.

·         The site had an allocation for housing in your adopted Local Plan and the use proposed, whilst not conventional housing, provided significant residential accommodation.

·         The proposal allowed BGU to continue to develop and ensured that there was little impact on their neighbours and the wider City.

·         The design of the new buildings, their scale, location and the materials with which they were to be built were appropriate to this part of the City and the use would not cause harm to the amenity of local residents.

·         The tree cover and landscaping of the site had gone through detailed consideration and an acceptable solution could be agreed.

 

g)    recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined at page 21 of the officer’s report, together with additional conditions requiring the implementation of a surface water drainage scheme and the formation of a new vehicular access.

 

Mr Jeremy Wright, addressed Planning Committee in objection to the proposed development, covering the following main points:

 

·         He spoke on behalf of Lincoln Civic Trust which objected most strongly to the planning application and recommended refusal.

·         He also spoke on behalf of 30 other local residents who were all against the planning application.

·         The location of the proposed development on Riseholme Road, represented the former Roman Ermine Street as the entrance to Historic Lincoln with distant views of the cathedral visible between the trees lining both sides of the road.

·         Dwellings were set well back from the road with large front gardens, and an integral feel of a green and well planned City.

·         The character of the new development next to the road would contrast massively to the existing area causing a huge impact.

·         The proposal was maximum density comprising large buildings.

·         Policy LP29 referred to the need to protect the dominance and approach views of Lincoln Cathedral.

·         The development proposed was made up of standard student flats and a non-descript office block.

·         It would create a new landmark for this area of the City out of symmetry with the surrounding houses.

·         There was conflict with Policy LP32 which supported the ongoing development of higher and further education establishments in the City, provided that these were well integrated with and contributed positively to their surroundings.

·         The development should be built no higher than 2 storey.

·         The addition of a five storey building would dwarf the adjacent Castle Academy and local houses.

·         The proposed scheme imposed inadequate access for fire appliances.

·         The proposed development had been ‘shoe horned’ into an inappropriate area.

·         The University of Lincoln recently opposed a new development having stated previously that there was sufficient provision for student housing.

·         The demand for universities could very quickly alter.

·         Several accommodation blocks laid empty on the Riseholme campus and this could happen here too.

·         The proposal represented an overdevelopment.

·         There was an available site on the existing campus four times larger.

·         Access, traffic, walking and parking issues.

·         This planning application should be refused and reconsidered.

 

Mr Bob Walder, addressed Planning Committee in support of the proposed development, covering the following main points:

 

·         He spoke as Chair of the BGU University Council.

·         BGU was a successful gold rated teaching University.

·         Students came from the City and County.

·         The University offered post graduate training through to teaching qualifications and apprenticeships.

·         Established in 1862 the University had been in situ before most of the houses.

·         BGU took the safety and well-being of its students very seriously and offered quality teaching facilities.

·         BGU was not seeking hundreds of more student accommodation, it needed to consolidate what it already had and improve the quality of accommodation.

·         Students were dispersed throughout the community at the current time with accommodation becoming tired and in need of modernisation.

·         This project had been designed following consultation, community involvement and discussion with officers.

·         There was an excellent record of management at the University, with high quality campus facilities.

·         BGU was a good neighbour to surrounding properties.

·         It strived to meet the desires of students moving forward.

·         BGU was able to mitigate potential problems on campus arising from time to time although these were rare.

·         BGU made a major contribution to the community in general together with the economic structure of the City.

·         This is the reason why this planning application was submitted.

 

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail, raising individual concerns as follows:

 

·         It was rare for the Lincoln Civic Trust to make negative recommendations.

·         The proposals represented overdevelopment in scale/massing.

·         The rest of the BGU campus was much lower in density. The proposed development would be sited right up to the road and not set back like the houses.

·         The Fire Authority required access to the buildings for fire appliances to meet building regulation standard in order to remove their objection, which would be difficult to achieve if mature trees were to line the access route.

·         Buildings of five storey in height were above that of any other development in the area and were out of context/design and style.

·         There was room for student accommodation here but not in this form.

·         There were issues surrounding parking.

·         The density of the proposed accommodation caused concern for local people and indeed the students who would live there.

·         There were no ecological measures e.g. green roofs.

·         There was more opportunity for Photovoltaic cells (p.v cells) on the teaching buildings but nowhere else on site.

·         Loss of greenery. The trees may no longer be in situ if access was required for emergency vehicles.

 

Members offered individual comments in support of the proposed scheme as follows:

 

·         The concerns of local residents regarding local amenity were understood, however, the needs of all people in the City should be considered and purpose built student accommodation was needed.

·         The reputation of BGU was respected and the need for purpose built student accommodation well presented this evening.

·         If purpose built accommodation wasn’t available then students would take up much needed family accommodation in the City.

 

Members raised questions as follows:

 

·         How would the University ensure that students from the new accommodation would not park their cars in local streets?

·         Where would the students reside in their second year at the University?

·         In terms of climate emergency/sustainable aspects of the building, why was there a need for so many car parking spaces taking into account its easily accessible location?

 

The Planning Team Leader offered the following points of clarification:

 

·         Planning conditions could not influence where students chose to park their cars. However, BGU had stated within their contract for the student accommodation that residents should not bring a car and that it would seek to enforce this as it had done in other areas.

·         The access distance between the buildings of the new development would be 8-10 metres. The Fire Service needed an access distance of 3 metres. There was potentially plenty of available space for landscaping between the buildings. Normal building regulations would be complied with.

·         PV cells would be provided on the teaching buildings and potentially elsewhere.

·         There would be no loss to the number of trees onsite. Trees would be removed, however, they would be replanted using extra heavy standard specimen trees.

·         Second year students would live out in the community or other purpose built student accommodation.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused.

 

Reason:

 

The application as proposed would be harmful to the character and local distinctiveness of the site and its surroundings by reason of the height and massing of the proposed buildings contrary to the provisions of Policy LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.