Agenda item

The Assistant Director for Planning:

 

1. described the application property, 10-11 Lindum Terrace as two detached three storey villas connected by a flat roof, brick extension, most recently occupied as a medical facility providing a centre for child adolescence services

 

2. reported that the buildings had laid empty for over ten years and despite having suffered fire damage and being in a state of disrepair, were structurally sound

 

3. added that an application for planning permission had been granted in 2018 for the re-development of the properties with neighbouring sites to form a new medical village (2016/1140/FUL), but permission was never implemented and had now lapsed

 

4. described the location of the properties to the north of Lindum Terrace approximately 1m higher than the road, as detailed within the officer’s report

 

5. confirmed that the site was situated within the Lindum and Arboretum Conservation Area

 

6. advised that planning permission was sought for partial demolition works and the erection of a 2½ storey rear extension and a glazed link extension to replace the existing brick link structure, together with refurbishment work, including replacement windows, doors and new rooflights

 

7. reported that the extensions and associated refurbishment works would facilitate a change of use of the properties to 16no. two-bedroom and 4no. one-bedroom flats, including proposed alterations to the access from Lindum Terrace to create areas for parking

 

8. confirmed that the proposals had been revised during the process of the application following extensive discussions between the agent, officers and the Principal Conservation Officer, resulting in the removal of a two-storey extension to the side and the scaling down of the rear extensions, reducing the overall number of units proposed from 33 to 20, together with revisions to their design to improve their appearance, impact on the Conservation Area and residential amenity

 

9. added that all neighbours and statutory consultees had been re-consulted on the revised proposals

 

10. 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 LP9: Health and Wellbeing

·         Policy LP11: Affordable Housing

·         Policy LP12: Infrastructure to Support Growth

·         Policy LP13: Accessibility and Transport

·         Policy LP14: Managing Water Resources and Flood Risk

·         Policy LP25: The Historic Environment

·         Policy LP26: Design and Amenity

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

·         National Planning Policy Framework

 

11. advised Planning Committee of the main issues to be considered as part of the application to assess the proposal with regards to:

 

·         Principle of Use

·         Developer Contributions

·         Visual Amenity and Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

·         Residential Amenity

·         Access, Parking and Highway Matters

·         Trees

·         Archaeology

·         Surface Water and Drainage

 

12. outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

13. concluded that:

 

 

Adam Wilson, agent for the proposed development, addressed Planning Committee in support of the application, making the following points:

 

·         He thanked Members for allowing him the opportunity to speak.

·         He acted as architect/developer for the project.

·         It was an exciting prospect to be able to restore this building.

·         The building next door had been demolished as unsafe following a fire.

·         Security at the application site had been increased due to instances of anti-social behaviour and people accessing the building, therefore it was important to act now to avoid any further damage being sustained.

·         Discussions had taken place at pre application stage and concerns raised by objectors had been taken into account in reaching the final proposal.

·         The number of units had been reduced to 20 to accommodate 1 car parking space per household.

·         Sustainable transport measures included vehicle recharge points and cycle storage facilities.

·         The development was within easy walking distance of the Bailgate and shopping areas.

·         Older people may choose to downsize property to move to this type of development, it being close to amenities and in a well-appointed area.

·         Other revisions had been made to the design of the elevations and the window/door design simplified to give the appearance of a continuation to the existing building.

·         He hoped members would support renovation of this traditional property.

 

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

 

The following comments/questions emerged.

 

·         Comment: It was interesting to be told the future occupancy for the building and welcome news it was to be restored.

·         Question: Was a condition required on grant of planning permission to ensure there were no bats present prior and during works?

·         Comment: It was hoped the proposed additions to the existing property mirrored the original house with use of quality materials.

·         Question: Was there a sustainable alternative to use of tarmac for the  site as it created a surface run-off?

·         Comment: The building was impressive and in need of renovation. It would definitely be of benefit to the area together with providing additional accommodation.

·         Comment: The works were badly needed to bring the property back to use rather than wait for it to be vandalised further.

·         Comment: An objection had been received regarding the limited size of the flats. Bringing older people into a small area may not necessarily be beneficial, it was important to take a balanced view.

·         Comment: The proposed use of the property was appropriate; homes were desperately needed, and these were in such a nice area.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning offered the following point of clarification to members:

 

·         In terms of bat protection, the report prepared back in 2016 for the site showed no evidence of bats present. There was a legal requirement under separate legislation for the developer to ensure there were no bats present prior and during construction work.

·         Use of best quality materials would be strived for in such a traditional development as this in a Conservation Area. The Principal Conservation Officer possessed great skills and knowledge to achieve the best finished result.

·         A Surface Water Drainage Management Strategy was required as a condition of grant of planning permission which would deal with drainage issues.

·         The number of flats had been reduced from 33 to 20. The footprint was relatively unchanged. Most flats were of generous size The floor area of the flats was acceptable when considered against Nationally Described Space Standard guidance. There would be no foreseeable compromise to residential amenity.

 

RESOLVED that the planning permission be approved subject to the following conditions with delegated authority granted to the Assistant Director of Planning to secure the financial contributions through a S106 agreement:

 

• Time limit of the permission
• Development in accordance with approved plans
• Samples of materials
• Details of windows, doors and other architectural detailing for the extensions
• Joinery details for replacement windows and doors in the existing building
• Finish of wall/replacement brick pier to widened access
• Surface water drainage management strategy
• Foul water drainage scheme
• Works in accordance with Arboricultural Method Statement and tree protection plan
• Electric vehicle charging scheme
• Hours of construction
• Reporting of any unexpected contamination