Agenda item

The Assistant Director of Planning:

 

a)    described the application site, located at the bottom of Tanners Lane, currently accommodating a two storey warehouse along the west boundary with a hardstanding and a number of adjoined portacabins to the east

 

b)    advised that the site was currently used by Lincolnshire Co-operative Society for storage, accessed to the east from the High Street, via the single width of Tanners Lane

 

c)    described the layout of the site as follows:

 

·         A small car park to the north, beyond which was the Coach House and Firth Court, both occupied as offices;

·         The Ritz (Weatherspoon’s) to the north east;

·         A service yard/car park to the east which sat to the rear of 137-140 and 141 High Street, and shared access to the site from Tanners Lane;

·         A former chapel, 134 High Street, to the east of the service yard, that abutted Tanners Lane, now occupied by Flames of Lincoln;

·         Tanners Court to the south of the site, a three and four storey residential development; and

·         To the west Royal Mail Sorting Office.

 

d)    confirmed that the site was not situated within a Conservation Area although it was abutted to the north by the West Parade and Brayford Conservation Area, which also incorporated properties on the High Street to the east; whilst The Ritz, The Coach House and 134 High Street were of significance, these were not listed and there were no other listed buildings in the vicinity

 

e)    advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of a single storey extension to the roof of the existing two storey warehouse and a four storey extension to the east elevation to facilitate the conversion to 21 student cluster flats to accommodate in total 80 en-suite bed spaces along with shared communal areas

 

f)     reported that the extensions would be modern additions, intended to reflect and enhance the industrial character of the existing warehouse

 

g)    confirmed that there would be no on-site parking although cycle parking would be available within the landscaped forecourt, together with provision of an enclosed bin store

 

h)    reported that prior to the submission of the application, the site was subject to extensive pre-application discussions with the architect, applicant team, Planning Officer and Principal Conservation Officer; officers raised a number of concerns in terms of scale and massing of the extensions for the initial proposal, since then a number of alternative schemes had been considered prior to the formal submission of the current proposals

 

i)     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 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 LP33: Lincoln’s City Centre Primary Shopping Area and Central Mixed Use Area

·         Policy LP37: Sub-Division and Multi-Occupation of Dwellings within Lincoln 86

·         National Planning Policy

·         Central Lincolnshire Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

 

j)     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

·         Impact on t Residential Amenity and Neighbouring Uses

·         Noise

·         Access and Highways

·         Climate Change and Low Carbon Living

·         Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage

·         Contaminated Land

·         Archaeology

 

k)    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

l)     referred to the Update sheet which contained an additional response received in respect of the proposed application for development, together with an updated officer recommendation in respect of the proposed scheme for an additional condition to the standard archaeological conditions requiring evaluation trenching to be undertaken at the site

 

m)   concluded that:

 

·         The principle of the use on the site, within the Central Mixed Use Area, was considered to be acceptable.

·         The retention of and works to the existing warehouse were welcomed, which would enhance its historic character.

·         The design and scale of the extensions were considered to be acceptable, complementing the original architectural style of the building and surroundings.

·         The proposals would therefore also preserve and enhance the views into and out of the conservation area.

·         Neither the use nor the external works would cause undue harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties or uses and, subject to appropriate noise mitigation measures, the development would provide an appropriate level of amenity for future occupants.

·         The site was in an accessible location, also offering cycle parking.

·         A S106 agreement would secure a financial contribution towards local healthcare infrastructure.

·         Matters relating to highways, climate change, flood risk, drainage, contamination and archaeology had been appropriately considered by officers and the relevant statutory consultees, and could be dealt with as required by condition.

·         The proposals would therefore be in accordance with the requirements of CLLP Policies LP1, LP2, LP9, LP12, LP13, LP14, LP16, LP18, LP25, LP26, LP33 and LP37, as well as guidance within the NPPF.

 

Stuart Allcock, local business owner, addressed Planning Committee in objection to the proposed development, covering the following main points:

 

·         Tanners Lane was a very narrow access to the application site.

·         Tanners Lane serviced vehicular access for the businesses in occupancy at 137-141 High Street

·         The proposal would be similar to the halls of Residence at the University, with parents coming up the lane when students arrived and left at the end of term to drop off/pick up suitcases.

·         There was a small town car park to the rear of the 139-140 High Street, used by his staff and customers which he believed would be used by visitors to the proposed student accommodation, thus impacting on the operation of his business.

·         Putting a traffic order on the lane would not prevent this from happening.

·         The lane would be used by vehicles delivering takeaways, Amazon, supermarket deliveries etc.

·         His customers would complain about this inconvenience in access to the car park behind his shop resulting in a loss of custom at Speedframe.

·         He hoped his views would be seriously considered.

 

Adam Wilson, representing the agent for the proposed development, addressed Planning Committee in support of the planning application, covering the following main points:

 

·         He thanked members of Planning Committee for allowing him the opportunity to speak.

·         This was a unique development.

·         The designers worked from a local practice most of whom lived in the City.

·         The development would have its own identity and raise the standard of student accommodation.

·         The site represented part of the industrial growth of the City, sympathetic ideas had been taken from the existing warehouse.

·         The applicant had worked through the objections received as part of the planning process.

·         A turning point for vehicles had been created on site.

·         Improvements to anti-social behaviour including a reduction in drug use/vandalism on Tanners Lane would be welcomed in the area.

·         The development would improve a forgotten street in a key location.

·         There had been no objection from the Highway Authority.

·         There would be no available parking, only a turning area for vehicles.

·         St Marks Shopping Area car parks were very close by for short-term use of students and their families on arrival/pick up times at end of term.

·         The design and context of the scheme was supported by planning officers.

·         As the City continued to grow there would be a finite number of buildings that could be converted to student accommodation. If this opportunity was not taken, purpose-built accommodation would not be available close to the University only further away in residential areas.

·         The style/atmosphere of the building would be pleasing.

·         The flats would be built in clusters with fewer bedrooms.

 

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

 

The following comments were received from members:

 

·         Tanners Lane was not pedestrian friendly, currently  consisting of a cobbled access road.

·         There had been no objection from the University regarding over intensification of student accommodation.

·         The operator of the accommodation should ensure it was well utilised by students, and provide opportunities for others to live there if not successful as such.

·         The accommodation was ideally situated close to the City Centre.

·         The concerns raised tonight by local businesses were understood.

·         There were car parking issues.

·         The Highways Authority had not objected to the proposal. If there became a problem related to student cars, local businesses should complain direct to Lincolnshire County Council as Highways Authority.

·         The area was not well lit for pedestrians access.

·         Royal Mail had also objected due to noise issues caused by their delivery office impacting on the student accommodation.

 

The Chair referred to conversations to be arranged between herself, the University and Planning Officers as to the current take up of student accommodation. She also highlighted that the Highways Authority had suggested a condition be imposed on grant of planning permission to manage drop offs/collections at the site.

 

The following questions were received from members:

 

·         Developer contributions for student flats were limited. Was it possible to impose a condition for the development only to be used for student accommodation, to be referred back to Planning Committee for any proposed change of use?

·         Was it possible for members to request a Traffic Order be imposed on the site?

·         Who was responsible for Tanners Lane in its poor condition?

·         The plans provided an opportunity to revitalise a very run down area., could the condition of the access road be addressed as part of the development?

·         Would operation of works traffic be conditioned appropriately?

 

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

 

·         There would be S106 implications should there be change of use of the development further down the line. The current use Sui Generis was for student occupation only. There was no need to impose a condition as such on grant of planning permission as any change of use would come back to Planning Committee for consideration.

·         Access issues: Access to the site was not ideal. It was difficult where historic buildings were concerned. A marked area had been drawn up on the plans for turning of vehicles when making deliveries.

·         The access road was an adopted highway and not a private lane.

·         County Council Traffic Orders: He was not aware of any powers available to impose a traffic order on the access road. This could be factored into  the member decision tonight, although the Highways Authority had not raised any objections to the proposals.

·         Drop offs: If members were so minded a further condition could be imposed on grant of planning permission to secure a management plan for use of surface car parks nearby for this purpose.

·         Noise concerns raised by Royal Mail: Planning Officers had held lengthy  discussions with the Environmental Protection Officer. A Noise Impact Assessment had been conducted and he was satisfied that any concerns could be dealt with via conditions.

·         A Construction Management Plan would be submitted to deal with impact of construction.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning suggested conversations could be held by officers with Lincolnshire County Council separate to tonight’s planning decision to discuss whether a Traffic Regulation Order was appropriate to the development. Tanners Lane was an adopted road and as such as a matter for the Highways Authority to determine.

 

A motion was moved, seconded, voted on and carried that provision of a Management Plan for Drop-Off/Collection Points for students be required as an additional condition of grant of planning permission.

 

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

 

• Time limit of the permission
• Development in accordance with approved plans
• Samples of materials including hard surfacing
• Site levels and finished floor levels
• Noise assessment
• Assessment of noise mitigation measures prior to occupation
• Boundary treatments
• Contamination
• Surface water drainage management strategy
• No surface water ground infiltration without prior consent
• Archaeology
• Construction management plan
• Landscaping implementation
• Provision of cycle storage prior to occupation
• Hours of construction/delivery
• Management plan-drop off/collection points for students.