Agenda item

The Planning Team Leader:

 

a)    described the application site, located at the south end of the High Street on the eastern side, previously part of a Peugeot Garage which was now vacant, and included the former United Reform Church to the boundary of the site fronting High Street

 

b)    added that the site lay adjacent to the South Park/St Catherines roundabout, with Sincil Dyke located to the south, residential properties on the other side of the bank fronting South Park, and residential properties to the north lining Spencer Street

 

c)    confirmed that the site was situated within the St Catherines Conservation Ara No 4

 

d)    stated that the scheme was submitted by Torsion Care, also the applicant for a planning permission recently granted to build a care home fronting High Street (2021/0597/FUL); whilst the applications had been submitted separately due to funding arrangements, the applicant intended to construct the two schemes simultaneously should the current application be granted

 

e)    advised that planning permission was sought for a new building comprising 20 retirement living apartments and conversion of the former United Reform Church to form 5 residential flats; the new building would be accessed via Cross Spencer Street with provision of 27 car parking spaces on the site including accessible spaces, an attenuation pond, refuse and cycle storage

 

f)     added that the proposals included demolition of the former Abacus Motor Group Showroom and ancillary motor repair buildings

 

g)    reported that pre-application discussions had taken place and further discussions had continued throughout the application process with the applicant and their architect; revisions had been submitted to address officer concerns regarding overlook, design and access

 

h)    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 LP11: Affordable Housing

·         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

·         PolicyLP27: 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 Area

·         Policy LP35: Lincoln’s Regeneration and Opportunity Areas

·         National Planning Policy Framework

 

i)     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 the Residential Amenity

·         Highways and Drainage

·         Archaeology

·         Contamination

·         Other Issues

 

j)     outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

k)    referred to the Update sheet which contained an additional response received in respect of the proposed application for development

 

l)     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 CCLP Policies and the NPPF.

 

Ian Ward, representing the applicant, Torsion Care, addressed Planning Committee in support of the application, making the following points:

 

·         His company was expert in delivering communities for people to live, building modern care homes, assisted living, and extra care facilities of the future.

·         They operated across the country including Lincolnshire and the East Midlands.

·         It was considered that the best use for the site was the establishment of a care home and retirement apartments.

·         The applicant had worked  jointly alongside the case officer to arrive at the best possible scheme for the area.

·         He referred to objections regarding potential overlooking onto South Park resulting from the Environment Agency having taken away trees; revisions had taken place to the scheme to address officer concerns regarding overlooking, design and access.

·         The proposed building had been reduced in size from four-storey to mainly two-storey along Sincil Dyke rising to three-storey on its western corner where it met the care home.

·         The number of units had been reduced to 20 residential units including the conversion of the existing former United Reform Church to form 5 additional 5 residential apartments.

·         The width of Spencer Street was to be widened as part of the conditions of grant of planning permission for the care home.

·         There was provision of 27 car parking spaces for the retirement living accommodation, two of which would serve the units in the former United Reform Church. This exceeded the required number of car parking spaces for retirement homes.

·         His company specialised in the construction and operation of care facilities and community living.

·         The proposes scheme would be of significant benefit to the City of Lincoln Council; it would also encourage and support the local community

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

 

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

 

The following comments were received from members:

 

·         There had been a great deal of pre-application discussion to arrive at the present scheme.

·         There had been no objection from the Highways Authority in respect of access.

·         The care home scheme approved in April 2022 had been conditioned to prevent communal rooms on the second floor, south-side of the development being converted into habitable accommodation.

·         The previous scheme was important in reducing bed blocking in local hospitals.

·         The scheme before us this evening did not impose any issues with overlooking due to being reduced in height from 4 to in the main two storeys.

·         It was difficult to understand why living accommodation was prohibited in other areas of the City due to flood risk, and in this case ground floor accommodation was proposed next to Sincil Drain.

·         The proposed scheme would result in a massive change in demographics for the area, having great physical impact in a small heavily built up area.

·         Spencer Street was an unsuitable access for the amount of vehicles that would use the road.

·         It was pleasing to note that overlooking had been reduced in the revised plans, although there would still be an element present.

·         The site should be developed, however, a more radical approach was required.

·         The proposed building had a pleasing look.

 

The following questions were received from members:

 

·         Were the alterations proposed to the Church purely internal?

·         Was it clear that policies LP11: Affordable Housing and LP9: Health and Wellbeing had been adhered to? The application should make sure the scheme met these policies to be viable.

·         S106 developer contributions had been requested in line with planning policy for affordable housing, playing fields/play space and the NHS. Why had the amount requested been reduced from £647,878.75 to £127,539?

·         Was the revised s106 figure arrived at before the reduction in the number of dwellings was agreed?

·         How was the viability clause administered logistically?

·         Had Policy LP10: Meeting Accommodation Needs been met in that the block overlooking the Sincil Drain had no lift to the upper floor?

·         Would there be a total of 20 retirement flats plus 5 in the Church for open use?

·         An energy efficiency statement was to be submitted later. Were there likely to be any changes made to the build in this respect, as a result?

 

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

 

·         In terms of energy efficiency, specified criteria must be met to reach the proposed EPC rating B, as detailed within the officer’s report. This standard was above that of building regulation requirements. A pre commencement condition was proposed for the submission of an energy statement detailing how these conditions would be met, subject to the agreement and satisfaction of Planning officers.

·         There would be the establishment of 20 retirement flats plus an additional 5 on the open market in the former Church.

·         All the ground floor flats would be accessible. Policy LP10: Meeting Accommodation Needs, required 30% of the properties to be accessible, this number had been exceeded as part of the design of the scheme.

·         Alterations to the former United Reform Church involved no additional building construction.

·         The applicant had submitted a viability appraisal to show that the original proposed developer contribution rendered the scheme unviable. A viability expert chosen by officers and independent to the applicant had checked the revised submitted figure of £127,539, based on the original policy requirements. Each policy set out the reasons for the contribution required. National Planning Policy Framework dictated the rate to be applied, together with the process to deal with situations when the requirements could not be met by the developer. Both National Planning Policy Framework guidance and viability expert advice had been followed here.

 

Councillor Burke advised that the Highways Authority had failed us in not objecting to the proposed development access on Spencer Street which was inadequate. He also suggested that members should request that national legislation be reformed as the development in its current format would put unacceptable pressure on local medical practices in meeting the demand of elderly residents

 

Councillor Bob Bushell observed that although he was unhappy with the situation regarding reduced developer contributions, he accepted the constraints applied by National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Councillor Dyer asked whether the updated figures had been reached before recent increases in costs of materials?

 

The Planning Team Leader advised that the calculation had been reached fairly recently, about two months ago.

 

Councillor Bean asked what role the applicant played in the viability study?

 

The Planning Team Leader confirmed the process. The applicant was required to submit the viability appraisal costs in greater detail, which were then subject to officer and independent viability expert scrutiny to determine whether or not they were reasonable, based on widely accepted profit margin figures and National Planning Guidance.

 

RESOLVED that authority be delegated to the Assistant Director of Planning to grant planning permission subject to the signing of an S106 agreement to secure contributions to affordable housing, local green infrastructure and the NHS, and also subject to the following conditions:

 

• 3 Year time limit for commencement
• Development in accordance with approved plans
• Details of bat/bird boxes to be submitted
• Details of external lighting to be submitted
• Noise mitigation measures to be submitted
• A scheme for electric vehicle charging points to be submitted
• Contaminated land further information to be submitted
• Anglian Water - details of foul drainage to be submitted
• Details of materials to be submitted
• Details of surface water drainage to be submitted
• Details of landscaping to be submitted
• Details of boundary walls and fences to be submitted
• Archaeological WSI and foundation design
• Construction of the development (delivery times and working hours)
• Waste collection times to be restricted to avoid noise sensitive hours
• Construction and Delivery Hours to be restricted to avoid noise sensitive hours
• Highway construction management plan to be submitted
• Stopping up of access on the High Street once new access is brought into use

 

(Councillors Armiger, Dyer and Liz Bushell requested that their vote against this planning application be recorded.)