Agenda item

(Councillor Hewson left the room during the consideration of this item having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the matter to be decided. He took no part in the discussion or vote on the planning application)

 

The Planning Team Leader:

 

1. described the application site, located to the south west of the City Centre, currently vacant although previously hosted by a series of industrial buildings which had now been demolished, situated within a Regeneration Opportunity Area as identified in the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan ( CCLP) and within Flood Zone 3

 

2. advised on the use of the surrounding area to the application site as follows:

 

 

3. confirmed that vehicular access to the site was proposed via Firth Road to the north

 

4. advised that planning permission was sought in Hybrid form with full details submitted for the eastern part of the site (Phase 1), proposing the erection of 22 buildings comprising 67 residential units including 40 C4 Houses in Multiplication (HiMO’s) and 19 Sue Generis HMOs, and an additional building at the entrance to the site containing office accommodation at ground floor with 8 apartments over two floors above

 

5. reported that the site offered 310 bedspaces within Phase 1; 16 of the units would be accessible and their layouts also complied with Building Regulations M4(3)

 

6. referred to Phase 2 of the scheme presented in Outline form with only the details of the access being considered as part of the current application, other matters would be determined on subsequent reserved matters applications, however, an indicative layout had been submitted showing 276 bedspaces within Phase 2

 

7. 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 LP10: Meeting Accommodation Needs

·         Policy LP12: Infrastructure to Support Growth

·         Policy LP13: Accessibility and Transport

·         Policy LP14: Managing Water Resources and Flood Risk

·         Policy LP16: Development of Land Affected by Contamination

·         Policy LP18: Climate Change and Low Carbon Living

·         Policy LP25: The Historic Environment

·         Policy LP26:  Design and Amenity

·         Policy LP29: Protecting Lincoln’s Setting and Character

·         Policy LP32: Lincoln’s Universities and Colleges

·         Policy LP35: Lincoln’s Regeneration and Opportunity Areas

·         National Planning Policy Framework

 

8. 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

·         Objection from University/Student Demand

·         Developer Contributions

·         Visual Amenity

·         Energy

·         Impact on Residential Amenity

·         Traffic and Pedestrian Safety

·         Flood Risk and Drainage

·         Landscaping and Biodiversity Net Gain

·         Archaeology

·         Contaminated Land

 

9. outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

10. referred to the Update Sheet which included additional responses received in respect of the proposed development and visuals of the proposed buildings

 

11. concluded that:

 

 

(Mr John Woodward and Ms Ravinder Uppal chose to share the 5 minute maximum time limit allocated to speak against the proposed development, having different concerns in relation to the scheme. They spoke for 2 ½ minutes each.)

 

John Woodward addressed Planning Committee in objection to the application, making the following points:

 

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

·         He wished to bring the Committee’s attention to potential damage to the former Cannon’s Glue Factory as a result of the development.

·         This significant building of historical value stood next to the site.

·         The factory was a perfect example of a 19^th Century ‘sweat shop’ and of considerable interest to the history of Victorian industrial development in the centre of the city.

·         It was built by Bernard Cannon who became Mayor of the Lincoln in 1880.

·         His mother was related to the Cannon family who came here in 1923. Her diary described the working factory in detail on a visit to William Cannon (son of Bernard) in 1921.

·         The factory was likely to have been involved in the supply of glue in World War 1 for manufacture of aeroplanes.

·         The factory represented a brilliant example of a traditional historic building.

 

Ravinder Uppal, representing the University of Lincoln, addressed Planning Committee in objection to the application, making the following points:

 

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

·         She represented the University of Lincoln as planning agent.

·         There was no further need for more student accommodation, there was enough stock available until 2030.

·         A development should respect need in the area which this proposal did not take into account.

·         The accommodation would be unaffordable for those on low incomes.

·         Policy LP10 had not been adhered to.

·         There were no other available sites in the City Centre now for this development, however there was already enough student stock.

·         There would be an overconcentration of student accommodation in the local area.

·         There were flood risk issues.

·         The Sequential and Essential test criteria had not been met.

·         The scheme was not sustainable.

 

Sarah Carr, representing the applicant, Ashcourt Group, addressed Planning Committee in support of the application, making the following points:

 

·         She spoke on behalf of the applicant.

·         The Managing Director and Sales Director of Ashcourt Group were also present this evening.

·         There had been no objections to the proposals from statutory consultees.

·         Benefits of the Scheme

·         The proposal was based on a similar successful scheme built and operated by Ashcourt Group in Hull. There were other schemes in Durham, York and Leeds.

·         The scheme proposed town houses for use by student social groups already formed during the first year of University.

·         It included parking spaces on site for resident’s use, open spaces and a site management office.

·         Students preferred this type of living compared to shared households operating as HMO’s.

·         The scheme would relieve pressure on the city’s housing stock for family occupation.

·         Landscaping areas and garden space would be provided on site.

·         CCTV would be installed on site and night time security provided from 7.00pm to 7.00am

·         No fossil fuels would be used on site.

·         Levels of insulation would exceed the new building regulations.

·         Electric vehicle charging points would be included on site.

·         Low energy design principles would be employed over the site.

·         The proposed development used Brownfield site in an appropriate area.

·         The scheme would be delivered by an established and experienced developer.

·         She hoped members would be able to offer their support to the scheme.

 

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

 

The following comments emerged:

 

·         The St Marks development had been approved unanimously in the past for 1300 beds.

·         When was construction of further purpose-built student accommodation going to cease, if the current accommodation could not be filled why was it needed? However, this was no doubt a good planning application.

·         When the University was built it was envisaged there would be 5 - 6,000 students, now there were 14,000.

·         This was a thorough planning application with carbon neutral elements.

·         Purpose built accommodation was better for students.

·         It was important to impose rent controls on purpose-built accommodation to avoid students moving back into community housing as a cheaper alternative.

·         Should the proposed accommodation become vacant it would be difficult to transform into residential properties.

·         The site was further away from the City Centre than other student accommodation, residential homes would be a better option for the site.

·         The success of the venture was not a material planning consideration.

·         An increase in purpose-built student bed capacity drove prices down due to competition/market forces.

·         The scheme was an excellent proposal, low carbon, having green space and was not a massively densely populated site. It would be available to all students whichever point they were in their studies. It would free up properties for family living.

·         The development may have a positive impact on Cannons Factory if perhaps it was restored at a later date.

 

The following questions emerged:

 

·         Did the pandemic impact on a surplus of student beds between 2021- August 2022?

·         Would the buildings be able to be converted into family homes, and if so would a contribution be made towards education, playing fields and an element of affordable housing?

·         Why had conditions suggested by Lincolnshire Police not been accounted for?

·         Would the scheme aid the Article 4 directive to free up student accommodation for family homes in places such as the West End?

·         How could we ensure those family homes freed up when students moved into purpose-built accommodation were not re let as HMO’s?

 

The Planning Team Leader offered the following points of clarification to members:

 

·         There were 14-16,000 students in the city, 8,000 in purpose-built accommodation and a considerable amount living elsewhere.

·         Experience at a similar scheme in Hull built and run by the same developer had resulted in a significant number of properties having returned to family homes.

·         Landlords would not leave properties empty as it would be too expensive. They would be sold on.

·         The proposed accommodation was capable of being changed to residential family homes should the current proposed use be unsustainable.

·         The site incorporated a great deal of open space and would be a pleasant place to live.

·         Officers were not satisfied that the figures provided by the University on student bed availability were capable of being tested as accurate.

·         Officers were happy that the proposed use was appropriate for this site which was identified in the Local Plan for accommodation.

·         In terms of the conditions suggested by Lincolnshire Police, those that were material were capable of being conditioned should members be so minded to do so.

 

 A motion was moved, seconded, voted upon and:

 

RESOLVED that, subject to planning permission being granted this evening, security measures suggested by Lincolnshire Police that were also material planning considerations be included as a condition of approved planning consent.

 

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 contribution through a S106 agreement:

 

Conditions

 

1. Development to commence within three years
2. Development to be in accordance with the submitted drawings
3. Materials to be submitted
4. Contaminated land
5. Archaeology
6. Highway’s construction management plan
7. Noise mitigation measures to be implemented
8. Biodiversity management plan to be submitted
9. Landscaping details to be submitted
10. EV charging points to be submitted
11. Boundary treatments to be submitted
12. Travel Plan to be implemented
13. Flood Risk mitigation measures to be implemented
14. Levels on site to be in accordance with drawings
15. Construction hours to be between 7:30am – 6pm Mon to Fri and 7.30am – 1pm Saturdays
16. Restricted to students only
17. Details of reserved matters to be submitted
18. Security measures to be implemented.