Agenda item

(Councillor Mara arrived late to the meeting during the discussion of this item. He sat in the public gallery and took no part in the deliberations or vote on the matter to be determined.)

 

The Planning Team Leader:

 

a)    advised that an inspection at the application site had taken place earlier that afternoon by Planning Committee members

 

b)    described the application site, located at the south end of the High Street on the eastern side, currently vacant although previously a Peugeot Garage and was occupied by a former showroom building fronting High Street with garage/workshop buildings to the rear; all to be demolished as part of the planning proposal

 

c)    described the surrounding area to the application site adjacent to the South Park/St Catherines roundabout, with;

 

 

d)    highlighted that the site was situated within St Catherines Conservation Area No 4

 

e)    advised that whilst the site was vacant in terms of its land use, Bentley’s on behalf of the Environment Agency had been undertaking works for several months in relation to the bank on the south boundary of the site, including removal of the trees along the boundary with the bank as part of a scheme of measures to improve flood defences in the area

 

f)     added that these works did not require planning permission and were not connected to the development proposed under this application; despite the proximity to the Sincil Dyke the majority of the site was within Flood Zone 1 with a small area on the south-western corner of the site located within Flood Zone 2

 

g)    advised that planning permission was sought for a residential care home comprising 73 en-suite rooms set within a purpose built facility over three floors, to include office space, kitchens, laundry facilities with shared kitchen and lounge facilities

 

h)    reported that access to the development would be via Cross Spencer Street and the existing access from High Street would be stopped up, pedestrian access would be via the rear of the building into a reception space within the centre of the building and 23 car parking spaces would be provided on-site for staff and visitors’ use

 

i)     referred to pre-application discussions with the applicant and their architect having taken place and further discussions which had continued throughout the application process resulting in revisions submitted to address officer concerns regarding overlooking, design and access

 

j)     reported that the scheme submitted by Torsion Care had also submitted a separate application for retirement flats on land to the rear of this site including the former United Reform Church to the north (2021/0598/FUL); officers were still in discussions with the applicant on the retirement flat application

 

k)    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 LP21: Biodiversity and Geodiversity

·         Policy LP25: The Historic Environment

·         Policy LP26:  Design and Amenity

·         Policy LP27: Main Town Centre Uses-Frontages and Advertisements

·         Policy LP29: Protecting Lincoln’s Setting and Character

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

·         National Planning Policy Framework

 

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

 

·         Principle and Policy Background

·         Developer Contributions

·         Assessment of Impact to the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

·         Impact on Residential Amenity

·         Highways and Drainage

·         Archaeology

·         Contamination

·         Other Issues

 

m)  outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

n)    referred to the Update Sheet which included a response received  from the Environment Agency in respect of the proposed development and a Swept Path Analysis relating to access to the site

 

o)    concluded that:

 

·         The development would relate well to the site and surroundings, particularly in relation to siting, height, scale, massing and design.

·         The proposals would bring a vacant site back into use and would ensure the character and appearance of the Conservation Area was preserved.

·         Technical matters relating to noise, highways, contamination, archaeology and drainage were to the satisfaction of the relevant consultees and could be dealt with as necessary by condition.

·         The proposals would therefore be in accordance with the requirements of CLLP Policies and the NPPF.

 

Councillor Helena Mair addressed Planning Committee as Ward Advocate representing local residents. She covered the following main points:

 

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

·         She spoke as advocate for Park Ward.

·         She was not opposed to the planning application, however she outlined three main concerns.

·         The proposed access from Spencer Street/Cross Spencer Street would have an adverse effect on local residents. The houses were built up to the roadside having no front gardens. There would be disturbance caused by cars, lorries and delivery vehicles.

·         There would be an effect on the residential amenity of back gardens along South Park. The Environment Agency had already removed trees to the bank on the south boundary of the site in the interests of flood prevention which reduced privacy for residents looking onto the site from the rear of their properties.

·         She requested that the height of the proposed development be reduced to two-storey along Sincil Dyke.

·         This planning application represented only half of the proposed development with the remaining proposals being considered as a separate planning application.

·         She requested that the matter be deferred until both applications could be considered together.

 

Chris Burns, on behalf of Torsion Care, applicant, addressed Planning Committee in support of the application, making the following points:

 

·         On 21 February 2021 the company became aware of the prospective sale of the application site, which had been vacant for some time.

·         Once the site was acquired by the company the best use for the land was discussed.

·         It was decided that care of people in the local area would be of great benefit.

·         There was an under supply of care in the community; a deficit of 529 bed spaces that following year.

·         The proposed use for the application site as a care home would reduce the impact on the NHS by £640,000 a day.

·         People preferred to be cared for in locations close to their family homes.

·         No further care homes had been built in the City since 1977.

·         The proposed scheme would bring an economic benefit of 100 full/part-time jobs to the City.

·         Stem Architects had been used for the design process as they had local knowledge of the area.

·         The design of the building was modern, engaging, and in sympathy with local architecture.

·         He was sorry the Environment Agency had taken away trees, however, unfortunately his company had no influence over this.

·         All habitable spaces within the building which could potentially affect overlooking had been taken out.

·         There would be no requirement for cars to park on the street as the facility would have its own car park.

·         The build incorporated fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly considerations such as electric charging points.

·         Provision had been made for bird/bat boxes in terms of ecological considerations.

·         Simultaneous construction of both schemes including the additional planning application submitted for retirement flats currently under consideration would take place to minimise any disruption.

·         He hoped Members would offer their support to the planning application before them this evening.

 

The Planning Team Leader advised that additional environmental support improvements including speed bumps could be imposed as a condition on grant of planning permission should members be so minded to do so.

 

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

 

The following comments emerged in support of the planning application:

 

·         The site visit conducted earlier today had addressed the individual member’s concerns regarding the proposed development, including:

 

Ø  The suggestion of a climate control detail condition.

Ø  The space between Sincil Drain and the properties on South Park.

Ø  Habitable rooms being minimised to avoid any potential overlook.

Ø  Spencer Street was wider in reality than at first envisaged and did not present any issues.

 

·         The Highway Authority had not raised any objections.

·         Landscaping works could be utilised to provide shelter to the properties on South Park.

·         The separate planning application would receive full scrutiny by Planning Committee.

·         Parking facilities had been accommodated and the care facility was also on the bus route.

·         The design of the building was in keeping with the local area.

·         Land was a precious resource in the City in terms of sustainability and this type of facility was desperately needed.

·         This was a Brownfield site.

·         There were vehicles accessing the site previously in its former use as a car dealership.

·         The Highway Authority was satisfied that vehicles were able to access Spencer Street for refuse collection.

·         Spencer Street was wider than others in the area.

·         This was an acceptable use for the site.

·         South Park roundabout was a main entrance into the City Centre. An inviting building such as the one proposed would be suited here.

·         The site visit had helped focus on the details of the planning application.

·         The removal of the wall on Spencer Street would be useful.

·         It was pleasing to note that the developer and planning officers had worked together during the process of the application, it was strange to see that a symmetrical gable had been removed in the later application.

·         The site visit was useful in appreciating the scale/height/ distance between the proposed development and the buildings on South Park.

 

The following concerns emerged in respect of the planning application:

 

·         It was true this type of development was needed and that the site needed to be brought into use, however, Spencer Street was unfortunately too narrow for the degree of traffic the scheme would bring.

·         The size of the build had not been reduced sufficiently to be a responsible use for the site.

·         The additional proposed development would involve an adverse impact on access to Spencer Street.

·         There was also an impact on overlooking to the properties on South Park, the proposed development was two-storey, however there were also windows in the roof.

·         It was not possible for trees to be replanted this side of the site due to access requirements for the Environment Agency.

·         The Environment Agency had used the front access onto High Street during their maintenance work to avoid disturbance to local residents.

·         We had only half an application before us this evening.

·         It was wished that the needs of local residents had been further accommodated by the developer.

·         Concerns were raised regarding potential traffic leaving Spencer Street wanting to turn right onto the High Street.

·         Landscaping and bat/bird box conditions needed to be ‘married’ together taking advice from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust on encouraging wildlife in urban areas.

·         The treatment of the boundary at the garden area at the apex of the site at the patio close to the road was important, in order to shield noise and traffic fumes from residents.

·         Habitable accommodation had been removed from the second floor according to the developer, however, there were two rooms remaining which could potentially be converted to bedrooms should the property be transferred into future ownership.

·         Rooms would still be overlooked even though they were not bedrooms.

·         Better options existed rather than access via Spencer Street.

 

The Chair reminded members of Planning Committee that it was their remit to consider the planning application in front of them this evening.

 

Members queried how the height of the development in metres?

 

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

 

·         The height of the building was 8.9 metres, equating to the height of the coping on the United Reform Church against the eaves of the new development. A condition could be imposed on grant of planning permission to specify that the eaves could be no higher than the coping on the United Reform Church if Members were so minded.

·         There were two rooms on the second floor which could potentially be converted into bedrooms. Officers had spoken to the applicant to ensure this did not happen, a requirement which could be conditioned if Members were so minded.

·         The patio area at the apex to the site would incorporate a six-foot plus high hedge to give additional protection to residents. There was also an additional seating area towards the middle of the development.

·         In terms of health of residents and air quality, Environmental Health colleagues were satisfied with the noise assessment submitted by the applicant together with a condition to be imposed on the grant of planning permission requiring a noise mitigation scheme to be submitted.

 

A motion was moved, seconded and voted upon that the planning application be deferred until the other application for the same site was considered.

 

The motion was lost.

 

The following additional proposed conditions to be imposed should planning permission be granted were individually moved, seconded, voted on, carried and:

 

RESOLVED as follows:

 

Additional Conditions

 

·         Communal rooms on the second floor, south-side of the development not to be converted to habitable accommodation.

·         Climate mitigation sustainability measures to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

·         The final eaves height of the building be no higher than the parapet height of the United Reform Church.

 

The Planning Team Leader confirmed that the existing proposed highway condition would include an increase to the radius of Spencer Street and removal of the wall there.

 

RESOLVED that

 

Authority be delegated to the Assistant Director of Planning to grant planning permission upon signing of the S106 for NHS contributions subject to the conditions set out below

 

Conditions:

 

·         Time limit of the permission

·         Development in accordance with approved plans

·         Bat/bird boxes

·         Layout as granted – in order to protect residential amenity

·         Lighting

·         Noise mitigation measures to be submitted

·         Hours

·         Contaminated land

·         Anglian Water details of foul drainage to be submitted

·         Materials including sample panel

·         Surface water drainage

·         Landscaping to be submitted

·         Boundary walls and fences to be submitted

·         Archaeological WSI and foundation design

·         Construction of the development (delivery times and working hours)

·         Waste collection times

·         Highway construction management plan

·         Existing dropped kerb to be reinstated to High Street

·         Lighting scheme to be submitted

·         A scheme for electric vehicle charging points to be submitted

·         Communal rooms on the second floor, south-side of the development not to be converted to habitable accommodation.

·         Climate mitigation sustainability measures to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

·         The final eaves height of the building be no higher than the parapet height of the United Reform Church.