Agenda item

(Councillors Bean and Longbottom left the room during the consideration of this item, having declared a personal and pecuniary interest in the matter being debated. They took no part in the discussion or vote on the matter to be determined.)

 

The Planning Team Leader:

 

1. advised that the application sought permission to build two new houses on land to the rear of 10 Steep Hill, and for demolition of two garage buildings

 

2. advised that the garden and land associated with this property extended through from Steep Hill to Michaelgate, currently occupied by several empty and derelict former garages

 

3. described the land on this part of the historic hillside as terraced, the application site was reasonably level, the terrace above retained by a boundary wall at the northern edge of the application site, and a wall on the south side of the site retaining the application site and forming the terrace on which the house known as ‘Strelitzia’ sat

 

4. highlighted the configuration of the two proposed new houses; a two storey contemporarily designed house at the back edge of the footpath to Michaelgate, and then a second more traditionally designed and proportioned house to the east, at one and a half storeys, the upper floor being within the pitched roof

 

5. confirmed that part of the site was situated within an area being a Scheduled Monument, based on the Roman Lindum Colonia, and that the whole of the site fell within the Conservation Area

 

6. reported that access to both plots would be from Michaelgate, the upper floor extended over the ground level drive from the property to the west leading through the site to the house to the east, which meant that both houses would have off-street parking

 

7. referred to a further planning application for the property for erection of two detached dwellings and demolition of two garage buildings (Listed Building Consent) with status ‘Pending Decision’

 

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

 

 

9. advised Planning Committee that as the application site was in a prominent location in the heart of the City, which sat on the historic hillside, consequently the proposals raised a number of issues with regards to:

 

 

10. outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

11. referred to the Update Sheet tabled at tonight’s meeting which included updated elevational treatment plans in respect of the proposed development

 

12. requested that:

 

 

13. concluded that the development of the two houses would change the appearance of this part of the City but the designs had been developed in such a way that it was considered that the change that would result would not be harmful to the area, to the heritage assets in the area and would not be unacceptable to the amenity of the neighbouring residents.

 

Mr David Butler, local resident, addressed Planning Committee in objection to the planning application, covering the following points:

 

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

·         The published Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed development stated that the impact on the heritage asset was neutral. The impact on the heritage asset was actually negative in a number of ways.

·         How had this proposed development been allowed to progress?

·         His concerns related to:

·         Impact on local residents

·         Impact on his property

·         Impact on visitors to the city

·         In terms of available parking space within the scheme, only 2/3 spaces had been allowed for although there were 8 bedrooms within the proposed development.

·         Michaelgate was situated halfway up Steep Hill. Other car users/visitors would be forced to street/pavement park which restricted other residents. Those who couldn’t park at the properties would need to reverse out causing danger to pedestrians etc.

·         His home would be dominated by overbearing brick walls directly at the boundary to his house; 29 metres of light would be lost due to the new build’s walls/roof structure.

·         It was not valid to allow a development to take place which would reduce the outlook for his household and reduce outlook/privacy to his garden.

·         The development had a negative impact on the amenity of his household members as direct neighbours of the proposed scheme.

·         In terms of heritage assets in Conservation Areas, views of the Cathedral could only be lost once. Members would be judged on this loss should planning permission be granted.

·         These were important views of the Cathedral, a symbolic building to our City and a key element to the prosperity of the local economy.

·         Policy LP29 supported the protection of potential dominance and approach views to the Cathedral/Castle skyline.

·         Issues of scale/massing.

·         He urged members to consider his comments and that of other objectors further rather than disregard them for the sake of an open market development.

 

Councillor Neil Murray addressed Planning Committee as Ward Advocate representing local residents. He covered the following main points:

 

·         His heart had sunk when he saw this planning application.

·         He had been a Councillor for a long time. He had been asked by residents and visitors how Strelitzia had managed to get planning permission. The building was an embarrassment to him even though he had not been involved in the decision.

·         This proposed development was a large block of brick with no attractive features, it sat right on the edge of the footpath, with a smaller property ‘squashed’ in behind.

·         If granted planning permission, views of the Cathedral would be spoilt.

·         The development lacked any aesthetic merit.

·         The development did nothing to enhance the area.

·         It represented overdevelopment. Two buildings were proposed on the footprint of the site.

·         The character of the area would not be enhanced in any way.

·         He hoped members would consider very carefully the objections from local residents, together with impact on the views onto Michaelgate and our beautiful Cathedral.

·         He hoped members would not make a similar mistake tonight.

 

John O Donohue, joint applicant, addressed Planning Committee in support of the application, covering the following main points:

 

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

·         He apologised for the absence of Tom Gumbrell, joint applicant, who would normally attend to speak; he was recovering from COVID.

·         He thanked Planning officers for their time and commitment to extensive pre-application discussions.

·         He also thanked them for their willingness to continue working during the lockdown period.

·         The application site was currently a blight on the landscape and suffered from incidents of anti-social behaviour.

·         Two cars had been damaged only the previous week.

·         The proposed development aimed to restore the street view of the site and prevent further anti-social behaviour.

·         Two family homes were proposed for the site; a complicated and expensive construction was involved here.

·         He thanked those neighbours who had supported the scheme and those who had expressed their views as part of the consultation process.

·         The planning application was now more robust due to comments received.

·         Concerns made by objectors regarding access/failure to consider the character of the district were not real.

·         It would be a great honour to build two quality houses on this site, at a wonderful location in a beautiful city.

 

The Committee considered the content of the report in further detail.

 

The following supportive comments emerged

 

·         Strelitzia had looked magnificent in the sunshine this afternoon.

·         This was an opportunity to build on a vacant site.

·         Officers had worked very hard alongside the applicant to come up with mediation measures to arrive a potentially acceptable scheme, although there were still issues of the Ancient Scheduled Monument to be resolved, and Heritage England to be consulted on the proposals.

·         The Highways Authority had not raised any objection to the scheme and there looked to be adequate parking on site.

·         Views of the Cathedral were referred to in many planning applications.

·         The design was objective.

·         Any development could potentially influence peoples’ amenities.

·         Heritage England had advised on further details of the scheme which were covered by the conditions of grant of planning permission.

·         A property to the north of the site had recently undergone an extension.

·         Recent anti-social behaviour on the site had caused £5,000 worth of damage.

·         This was an ideal opportunity for development of the site.

·         We must move with the times.

·         There were still carbon zero friendly/ecological considerations to take into account.

 

The following concerns emerged from discussions held:

 

·         The design of this building with incorporating a flat roof was not in keeping with the character of the Cathedral Quarter.

·         Neither was Strelitzia.

·         It was concerning to see comments from Lincoln Civic Trust that there should be only one property on this application site.

·         Lincoln Civic Trust were also concerned about the loss of green space.

·         Concerns regarding design/size of the build.

·         Concerns regarding potential parking issues.

·         Should the application be approved it would be controversial in terms of architectural design/not aesthetically pleasing.

·         A future improved application should be submitted.

·         We all had a duty to protect our views of the Cathedral/ consideration of our architectural heritage, as quoted by Bishop John Saxby.

·         There had been many objections received from people who didn’t even live in the area.

·         The design of the building had been criticised as ‘horrendous’.

·         There were still carbon zero friendly/ecological considerations to take into account. As a carbon zero city we should always look at materials used/benefits to the local area in this respect.

·         We may need to change the way properties were built moving forward, not just by design but how they were made

 

The Chair asked whether there would be a landscaping condition.

 

The Planning Team Leader advised that there was not always a great deal of land available for landscaping in an urban area as this was considered to be the case here.

 

A motion was proposed, seconded, put to the vote and;

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused.

 

Reasons for refusal of planning permission were discussed by Members.

 

Reasons for refusal were proposed, seconded, put to the vote, and RESOLVED as follows:

 

Reasons

 

1. The design of the houses as proposed was not in keeping with the character and appearance of the conservation area and was therefore contrary to the provisions of Policy LP26 and Policy LP29 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and paragraph 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

 

2. The development as proposed did not provide any significant level of garden space to either new dwelling appropriate to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and conservation area. This was contrary to the provisions of Policy LP26 and paragraph 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.