Agenda item

The Planning Team Leader:

 

a.    referred to the application site called the Judges Lodgings, together with adjacent land to the north, east and west and also 2 Bailgate

 

b.    reported that planning permission was sought for the application site as follows:

 

·       To demolish an existing extension to the rear of the Judges Lodgings to be replaced with a three-storey extension to provide apart-hotel style bedrooms on the upper floors with undercroft car parking and services at ground floor.

·       Internal and external works to Judges Lodgings to facilitate the conversion and provision of a café and restaurant space at ground floor level.

·       Alterations to an outbuilding to the west of Judges Lodgings to provide a retail/café kiosk.

·       Erection of a 1½ and 2½ storey building to the north of the site with retail commercial floorspace, undercroft parking on the ground floor and long-stay serviced accommodation to the upper floors (referred to as Block C within the officer’s report.)

·       Erection of timber glazed shopfronts to create retail kiosks under the arch from Bailgate and to the west.

·       Reinstatement of the shopfront to 2 Bailgate.

·       Reconfiguration of the entrance door to 2A Bailgate.

·       Associated works including erection of buildings/structures to provide plant/infrastructure.

·       Hard and soft landscaping works to create a publicly accessible open space with external seating areas.

 

c.     described the aspirations of the Design and Access Statement to redevelop the area to create a vibrant mixed-use development incorporating food and beverage establishments, boutique, retail and apart-style accommodation to compliment accommodation currently available at the White Hart Hotel, also with the applicant’s ownership

 

d.    advised that the development proposed to enhance the public realm, reinstate public routes through the sites to St Paul’s Lane and creation of new public routes from St Paul’s Lane to Bailgate and St Paul’s Lane and Castle Hill

 

e.    described the Judges Lodgings, a grade II* building which sat to the north of Castle Hill and to the east of Lincoln Castle, also a scheduled monument grade I listed

 

f.      referred to the land to the north, east and west of the building also the subject of this planning application, and described the location of the application site in relation to surrounding buildings, a number being either grade II* or II listed as detailed within the officer’s report

 

g.    reported that the application site was also within the Cathedral and City Centre Conservation Area

 

h.    described in detail two additional applications submitted requesting listed building consent which would consider the proposals in relation to the impact on the buildings as designated heritage assets, whereas the full application considered the proposals with regard to the acceptability of the proposed uses, impact on visual amenity, residential amenity and highways, amongst other issues

 

i.      advised that as the number of objections received for the two listed building consent applications did not meet the threshold for referral to Committee, they would be dealt with under delegated powers, however a decision would not be taken until Planning Committee had determined this full planning application

 

j.      added that many of the objections raised to the listed building consent applications related to matters other than the impact on the heritage asset and were therefore included, listed and taken into account as part of the consideration of this full application; a request for additional information from Lincolnshire County Council against the listed building consent application was also dealt with here

 

k.     reported on revisions made to both this application and the accompanying listed building consent applications during the planning process as detailed within the officers report, which had been subjected to re-consultation with statutory consultees, objectors and neighbours as necessary and responses included in full within the application before Committee

 

l.      detailed the history to the application site within the officer’s report

 

m.   provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:

 

·       Policy S1: The Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy

·       Policy S6: Design Principles for Efficient Buildings

·       Policy S8: Reducing Energy Consumption-Non-Residential Development

·       Policy S13: Reducing Energy Consumption in Existing Buildings

·       Policy NS18: Electric Vehicle Charging

·       Policy S21: Flood Risk and Water Resources

·       Policy S35: Network and Hierarchy of Centres

·       Policy S36: Lincoln’s City Centre and Primary Shopping Area

·       Policy S42: Sustainable Urban Tourism

·       Policy S53: Design and Amenity

·       Policy S56: Development on Land Affected by Contamination

·       Policy S57: The Historic Environment

·       Policy S60: Protecting Biodiversity and Geodiversity

·       Policy S61: Biodiversity Opportunity and Delivering Measurable Net Gains

·       Policy S66: Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows

·       National Planning Policy Framework      

 

14. provided details of the issues to be assessed in relation to the planning application, as follows:

 

 

o.    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

16. concluded that:

 

 

Mr James Rigby addressed Planning Committee as agent for the scheme in support of the proposed planning application. He covered the following main points:

 

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

·       The officers report was very comprehensive/excellently presented.

·       He was pleased that it included a strong officer recommendation for approval.

·       Application for listed building consent had been submitted in July 2023.

·       The scheme had since been refined following detailed discussions between the applicant and planning officers.

·       The planning application proposed a vibrant mixed-use development.

·       It offered quality hotel accommodation, restaurant and café space, together with retail floor space in boutique style.

·       Public access through the site would be from St Pauls Lane.

·       There was an allocation of 30 car parking spaces within the scheme.

·       This was a uniquely connected development scheme for the White Hart Hotel

·       It involved enhancement of pedestrian and public space.

·       The removal of the rear 1950/60’s rear extension to the Judges Lodgings would be replaced with a much more aesthetically pleasing building.

·       Economic benefits would include the creation of 40 full-time-equivalent jobs in the city.

·       There would also be additional indirect employment to support existing businesses.

·       The planning balance fell in favour of the planning application.

·       He hoped the planning application would be supported by Planning Committee this evening.

 

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

 

The following questions/comments were raised in relation to the planning application:

 

·       Was there a time limit involved to give the archaeologists sufficient opportunity to carry out investigations?

·       How would access to bins be managed?

·       Had potential problems in terms of air conditioning, pumps and noise nuisance been accounted for?

·       It was hoped the application for Listed Building Consent would be correct first time without the need for a retrospective planning application

 

The Planning Team Leader offered the following points of clarification in relation to the planning application:

 

·       In terms of the bin storage, electrical sub-station, and plant storage area, these would be serviced from St Paul’s Lane Times of operation would be conditioned to avoid busy periods.

·       The applicant was fully aware that if it did not conform with listed building consent requirements this was regarded as a serious crime. Should more work above that applied for be required, an additional separate application would be submitted.

·       A great deal of archaeological work had already been completed on site and there was a great deal of confidence in what would be found. A written scheme of investigation would be required by condition to ensure the archaeology was assessed and recorded appropriately.

·       In terms of air conditioning, Environmental Officers were satisfied that there would be no issues relating to noise.

 

Further questions/comments were raised in relation to the planning application:

 

·       Did the scheme provide sufficient car parking bays?

·       Would there be potential traffic congestion issues?

·       Would the development impact on traffic in Bailgate particularly during the construction period?

·       Would the development complement existing buildings in the area?

·       Had issues of energy efficiency and sustainability been accounted for?

 

The Planning Team Leader responded as follows:

 

·       The scheme allocated for 30 car parking spaces. The existing car park contained 30-35 spaces. The benefits of the proposed development meant that traffic would be using St Pauls Lane and not travelling along Bailgate to park, resulting in reduced traffic.

·       A Construction Management Plan covering the construction period was conditioned as part of the grant of planning permission.

·       There was an aspiration for the new retail units to be ‘start up’ businesses similar to the existing character of the area.

·       Officers were confident that the applicants had managed considerations such as sustainability and energy efficiency in the refurbishment of the existing Judges Lodgings and the new buildings.

 

Further questions/comments were raised in relation to the planning application:

 

·       Could officers give an assurance that traffic access to St Mary Magdalene Church would not be disrupted.

·       In terms of the response letter provided by Dr Stein at page 74 of the agenda bundle and the aspiration for the historic area to be as good as it was if not better, what was the relevance of the odd window boxes she referred to at the back of the proposed extension?

·       Was the consideration as to whether or not the removal of asphalt at St Pauls Lane was to be replaced with cobbles to the site boundary an issue here?

 

The Planning Team Leader responded as follows:

 

·       The matter of access to St Magdalene’s Church was beyond our control as a highways issue, however it wasn’t considered to be an anticipated problem as cars would more likely be accessing the area from St Paul’s Lane.

·       The concerns raised by Dr Stein had been considered in great detail. The Principal Conservation Officer had evaluated how the proposals had been addressed by the applicant to be of significant benefit individually and visually.

·       The window boxes could be viewed from the Castle Walls, as displayed in the photograph within the officer’s power point presentation. The new build would complement not copy the Judges Lodgings. It represented a good reflection on what was there before with modern additions to bring real benefit to the area.

 

Further questions/comments were raised as follows:

 

·       It was heartening to hear that applicants and planning officers were working together to achieve the best possible outcomes.

·       The area had been an eyesore for some time.

·       It was pleasing to see a public route through St Paul’s Lane, although the member was less sure about the route onto Bailgate and the curved windows. There was an eclectic mix of shopfronts which was good.

·       There was a balance to be met in demolishing a building containing a large amount of carbon and creation of a new build.

·       Would a record of the cellars attached to the Judges Lodgings be kept open for public access?

·       It would be beneficial to see the cobbles reinstated at St Pauls Lane.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

 

The Planning Team Leader responded as follows:

 

·       The curved glazing was a Georgian innovation to reflect local Georgian architecture.

·       Carbon was embedded in the existing buildings, A conversion to the existing premises rather than a new build was not possible due to the poor quality of the structure. However, where possible these days materials were crushed and re-used on-site as hardcore.

·       The record of the cellars from the Judges Lodgings would be available for public view at the County Archives Office and deposits kept at the Museum, conditioned as such should planning permission be granted.

·       Reinstatement of the cobbles could not be reasonably conditioned, although the applicant was here this evening and hopefully would take comments made on board.

 

Further comments were received as follows:

 

·       The development proposed much better use of land.

·       There may be potential archaeological discoveries.

·       The design complemented the existing windows.

·       It was important to take traffic off the Bailgate.

·       It would bring more people into the area. CCTV surveillance would be required to manage any Anti-Social Behaviour.

 

The Planning Team Leader advised that the premises would be gated to the front and to the rear to control crime. The rest of the site although not gated, included a parking area for the hotel covered by CCTV.

 

Concerns were raised in that the road where the bin storage would be sited was narrow. The risk of vehicles reversing out was dramatically increased at the point of cut through from Bailgate. Reinstatement of the cobbles would increase the level of sound protection for pedestrians

 

The Planning Team Leader advised that the area to the south of St Paul’s Lane, Bedford Court, was adopted highway outside of the application site, and it was not considered reasonable to condition reinstatement of the cobbles as part of the planning process. The geometry of the road would significantly reduce the potential for speed. The site could be accessed for service within the current layout proposed. Although an incident of someone reversing could not be ruled out, it was expected that motorists would exit in forward gear.

 

The Chair referred to the scheme enhancing the area making it more attractive in the creation of public open space and pedestrian access at benefit to this part of the city, together with the creation of additional overnight stay bedspace.

 

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

 

• Time limit of the permission
• Development in accordance with approved plans
• Material sample and details for Block C
• Implementation and retention of landscaping scheme
• Protection measures for tree RPAs
• Details of screen to balcony
• Implementation of noise mitigation measures
• Scheme for kitchen extraction
• Hours of construction/delivery
• Hours for waste collection
• Construction Management Plan
• Implementation of measures within Ecological Assessment
• Submission of a scheme of bird boxes, bat boxes and hedgehog houses
• Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation including photographic record
• Foundation design
• Submission of full archive and report following completion of archaeological works
• Implementation of contaminated land remediation scheme
• Reporting unexpected contamination
• Management Strategy for retail kiosks