Agenda item

(Councillor Tweddle returned to the meeting and re-took her seat as Chair).

 

(Councillor Chris Burke re-took his seat as a member of Planning Committee)

 

(Councillor Longbottom sat in the public gallery during the consideration of this item, having chosen to speak as Ward Advocate representing local residents, losing her right to sit as a member of Planning Committee. She took no part in the discussion or vote on the matter to be determined.)

 

(Councillor Mark Storer left the room during the discussion of this item having declared a predetermination in respect of the planning application. He took no part in the discussion or vote on the matter to be determined.)

 

The Assistant Director of Planning:

 

a)    advised that planning permission was sought for change of use of 5 Drury Lane from an art gallery (Use Class F1) to a dental practice (Use Class E), proposing external alterations to the existing shopfront, the installation of a window to the west elevation, replacement of existing air-conditioning units and an extraction system and solar panels to the roof

 

b)    described the application premises as follows:

 

·         A single storey building with a shallow mono-pitched roof hidden by a parapet wall around the front of the building.

·         The frontage of the building incorporated a simple timber shopfront sat on the west side of Drury Lane almost opposite the junction with Wordsworth Street.

·         The side, north elevation of the premises was adjoined to 4 Drury Lane, a two-storey end dwelling.

·         The application premises extended west into the site and also abutted ‘Dough Loco’ to the north.

·         The side, south elevation of the premises abutted the rear elevations of a terrace of residential properties including 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Drury Lane.

·         A yard shared by the adjacent properties, including 11 Drury Lane, was located to the rear, west of the site.

·         The premises was not listed although it was located within the Cathedral and City Centre Conservation Area and within proximity of the ramparts of Lincoln Castle, a grade I listed building and Scheduled Monument.

 

c)    confirmed that the premises were currently vacant, having most recently being occupied as the Sam Scorer Gallery since the late 1990s; the current floor plan was very open and stud walls would be erected to subdivide the premises to create consulting rooms

 

d)    reported that the application had been revised during the process, namely a reduction in the number of solar panels and the addition of the window to the west elevation, facing the adjacent yard, and the properties adjoining the yard had been re-consulted to invite comments in relation to the window

 

e)    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 LP15   Community Facilities

·         Policy LP25   The Historic Environment

·         Policy LP26   Design and Amenity

·         Policy LP27   Main Town Centre Uses - Frontages and Advertisements

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

 

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

 

·         Policy Context and Principle of Use

·         Visual Amenity and Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

·         Residential Amenity and Noise

·         Parking and Highways

 

g)    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

h)    referred to the Update sheet which contained additional consultation responses received in respect of the proposed application for development, including a response from Historic England

 

i)     concluded that:

 

·         The principle of the proposed, community use of this vacant commercial premises in this location was considered to be acceptable.

·         The proposed alterations to the shopfront were sympathetic to the appearance of the building.

·         The addition of a window to the rear and the extraction units and solar panels to the roof would not cause harm to the appearance of the building or the wider area.

·         Accordingly, the proposals would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

·         With a condition to require a Noise Impact Assessment and necessary mitigation measures it was considered that the proposed use could be operated without having a negative impact on the amenities of adjoining residential properties, premises and the local environment.

·         The window to the rear would also be controlled by condition so there was no impact on the privacy of the users of the adjoining yard.

·         The location of the premises would enable the proposed use to be accessed by sustainable transport modes and there were also public car parks in the vicinity.

·         The proposal would therefore be in accordance with the requirements of CLLP Policies LP1, LP2, LP9, LP15, LP25, LP26 and LP27 and the NPPF.

 

Colin Dudman, local resident, addressed Planning Committee in objection to the proposed development, covering the following main concerns:

 

·         The building was best known as The Sam Scorer Gallery, a self-run art gallery.

·         It was to be replaced by a dentist surgery.

·         The importance of the existing art gallery should be recognised.

·         It provided creative vibrancy and diversity.

·         It allowed local artists to exhibit their work under the umbrella of the Arts Trust.

·         The previous owners of Sam Scorer Gallery had not got legal security for future use of the building.

·         He hoped the recognition of the importance of this gallery would be given attention.

·         There had not been sufficient opportunity to register the building as an Asset of Community Value.

·         If there had been sufficient time, the building would have been retained.

·         Its use affected the cultural diversity of the City.

·         The gallery was a trail blazer to Historic Lincoln.

·         The gallery had been evicted from its home.

·         This represented a loss of a major cultural art facility.

·         It was a unique artistic enterprise.

 

Councillor Rebecca Longbottom addressed Planning Committee as Ward Advocate on behalf of local residents, covering the following main points:

 

·         She represented the views of local residents.

·         There had been an immense strength of feeling shown by objectors to the scheme.

·         The main objection was the change of use to a dentist surgery.

·         In terms of its current status, the building was designated as an art gallery under Town and Country Planning Regulations since 2020 Class F1.

·         It was not a shop, but an art gallery.

·         The officer’s report referred to the premises having an established commercial use; however, it was not a shop.

·         The art gallery was an important local institution.

·         Policy LP15: Change of use did not constitute a community facility.

·         Access to the art gallery had been free and self-run.

·         The Arts Trust had run the facility for 20 years in appreciation of public art by living artists.

·         She referred to the new local plan currently with the Planning Inspectorate.

·         Policy 542-Sustainable Urban Tourism- set the scene for Lincoln as a key heritage City important as a visitor attraction. Development proposals should only be allowed to deviate from this important community use under very stringent conditions.

 

Roger Rippon addressed Planning Committee on behalf of the Applicant in support of the planning application, covering the following main points:

 

·         He represented the planning consultant for the proposed development.

·         The premises would be used for specialist orthodontic treatment using braces to correct bite/ straighten teeth.

·         There was currently only one other specialist in this line covering the City and surrounding area.

·         The waiting time for treatment was 4-5 years.

·         The other provider was the hospital, who only gave secondary treatment.

·         The health and well-being of patients was adversely affected by the long delays in receiving treatment.

·         The practice would employ highly qualified orthodontic practitioners to serve local people.

·         A written response was provided within the officers report on behalf of the applicants in response to public objections.

·         The freehold interest in the building from the Scorer family followed an open market sales campaign with vacant possession secured on completion of sale.

·         This application represented a new proposal for an orthodontic practice and was not about the closure of an art gallery.

·         The Local Plan contained a key challenge to reduce health inequalities.

·         Policy LP9 supported appropriately located and coordinated health facilities.

·         A number of permanent skilled jobs would be created by the practice.

·         The planning balance was firmly in favour of approval of the proposals in accordance with all policies and strategies.

 

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

 

The following concerns were received from members:

 

·         Sympathy was given to the lack of time available for supporters of the art gallery to apply for it to become an Asset of Community Value, similar to an opportunity offered to supporters of West End Tap Public House at a previous Planning Committee. However, in this instance the building was already sold.

·         Planning Committee must determine whether there was a plan in existence to apply to turn the premises back to an art gallery and if so, whether we had time to wait for it.

·         The premises were a massive asset to the art scene in Lincoln.

·         Councillor Longbottom had raised issues regarding commercial use of the property.

·         The proposed use of the premises met local health needs, however, there were suitable alternative locations outside the cultural area.

·         We should perhaps wait to see if the premises could be saved as a Community Asset.

 

The following comments were received in support of the planning application

 

·         If the use for this building was not changed there was potential for it to become the subject of vandalism or fall into disrepair.

·         There had been no restriction placed on the future type of use when the property was purchased, therefore there was little fight to keep the art gallery open.

·         The proposed use was acceptable.

·         Members of the public found it very difficult to register with a dentist in the area, being in the bottom four in the country with regards to the ratio of dental practices to the population.

·         If the premises were not sustainable as an art gallery then an alternative use was required.

·         There had been no application for the premises to become an Asset of Community Value.

 

The following questions were received from members:

 

·         Was the planning application submitted by the current owners of the property?

·         Officer Response: Yes it was.

·         Would low key signage be kept for the premises in this cultural area?

·         Would measures be taken to address potential noise from air conditioning fans?

 

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

 

·         Members should be clear of the remit of Planning Committee in determining this planning application which was separate to any application submitted for an Asset of Community Value. The property was already sold.

·         The type of use for the building was classed as commercial as opposed to residential. This class description was not indicative of a ‘money making venture’.

·         It was possible to say that the proposed use of the building as a dental practice was also a community use as was its former use as an art gallery.

·         Changes to the signage at the premises would involve minor alterations only which would be subtle/low key in keeping with the cultural area.

·         In terms of potential noise nuisance, the Pollution Control Officer had raised no objections to the proposed change of use including the installation of replacement air conditioning units and an extraction system. However, a condition would be imposed on grant of planning permission requiring a noise impact assessment to be carried out prior to their installation in order that any necessary mitigation measures could be implemented to minimise the impact of any noise for local residents.

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

• Time limit to implement permission
• Development in accordance with approved plans
• Noise Impact Assessment and noise mitigation measures as necessary
• Window to rear to be obscure glazed, fixed and minimum of 1.8m above floor level