Agenda item

The Planning Team Leader:

a)    described the application site, part of the garden of the former Warden’s House at the west end of the building now known as Bailgate Court; formerly Chad Varah House which had itself been converted recently into residential apartments

b)    stated that the former Chad Varah House planning permission also had as part of it an extension at the west of the Warden’s House for a glazed structure which had not been implemented

c)    confirmed that the Warden’s House was attached to/ also a listed Grade II building along with Bailgate Court, located within the Cathedral and City Centre Conservation Area

d)    described Drury Lane and the Castle beyond located to the north of the site, residential properties along Drury Lane to the west with Gibraltar Hill running alongside the western boundary of the site beyond a two metre high brick wall, and the gardens of the application site fell away down the hillside with residential properties beyond on St Michael’s Terrace and Stanthaket Court to the south,

e)    advised that the application for planning permission was accompanied by an associated application for listed building consent which dealt  with technical changes to the building and was not being brought before Planning Committee; the impact on the setting of the listed building was dealt with through the planning permission

f)     advised that planning permission was sought to build a two storey annexe to the west of the existing house; the application originally proposed a new vehicular access from Gibraltar Hill into the site, but this had subsequently been removed together with a reduction in the size of the annexe following negotiations with planning officers and the annexe would no longer extend into land designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument

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

·         National Planning Policy Framework

·         Policy 126: The Creation of High Quality, Beautiful and Sustainable Buildings

·         Policy 195: Particular Significance of the Heritage Asset

·         Policy 202:Less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including optimum viable use.

·         Central Lincolnshire Local Plan Policy

·         Policy LP25: The Historic Environment

·         Policy LP26:Design and Amenity

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

·         National and Local Planning Policy

·         Impact on the Adjoining Listed Building

·         Impact on the Amenity of Neighbours

·         Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

i)     outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

j)     concluded that:

·         This was a carefully designed proposal that had been crafted with sensitivity to its context whilst also providing a small point of interest through the contemporary approach to the architecture.

·         It did not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of its neighbours, and it would not be harmful to the significance of the listed building or to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Barbara Griffin-Wright, applicant, addressed Planning Committee in support of the proposed development, covering the following main points:

·         It was important to reiterate the importance of the architecture of the project.

·         The planning application was submitted a year ago and had since been revised in detail.

·         The proposed development offered a sustainable design.

·         Impact on the amenity of neighbours had been addressed. Views would be screened by the boundary wall to Gibraltar Hill, trees/vegetation, use of hit and miss brickwork and the angle of the build to restrict potential overlooking.

·         The tree in the background did not impinge on the Scheduled Ancient Monument.

·         This was a better scheme.

·         Design of fenestration had been discussed with Planning Officers/Principal Conservation Officer and conditioned accordingly.

·         Careful choice of materials had been taken using a roman brick to provide sensitively to the buildings context.

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

The following comments/questions were received from members:

·         Would the gated access referred to by a member of the public as blocking access for residents, deliveries, and emergency vehicles still go ahead?

·         It was pleasing to note the annexe extension would no longer encroach on land designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

·         Was it clear where the boundary of the Scheduled Ancient Monument started and finished?

·         The initial application had been amended to include a second entrance on Gibraltar Hill and was now ‘pulled back’ from the Scheduled Ancient Monument.

·         The design was subjective.

·         Mitigation measures with hit and miss brickwork were helpful.

·         The tree would obscure vision in the summer months; however, it was protected.

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

·         Access: The first consultation proposed a second gate further down Gibraltar Hill, which was no longer part of the current application, now having a shared access from the top of Gibraltar Hill.

·         Scheduled Ancient Monument: The assumed boundary line had been taken using a very safe approach in consultation with the City Archaeologist. The annexe was well away from this boundary

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

·         Development to commence within 3 years

·         Strict compliance with the approved drawings

·         Archaeological written scheme of investigation prior to commencement

·         Details of foundation design to deal with  archaeology and slope stability

·         Details of brickwork and mortar to be provided by way of a sample panel to be constructed on site

·         No use of the roof of the building as a balcony at any time

·         Building only to be occupied in association with the main dwelling