Agenda item

(Councillors Longbottom, Roper and Wood left the room during the discussion of this item having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in respect of the planning application to be considered. They took no part in the discussion or vote on the matter to be determined)

 

The Assistant Director of Planning:

 

a.    referred to the application property, the White Hart Hotel, a grade II listed building located on the corner with Bailgate and Eastgate within the Cathedral and City Centre Conservation Area

 

b.    detailed the City Council’s Principal Conservation Officer’s description of the history of the premises, being a complicated site comprising four distinct building phases along the street scene

 

c.     advised that the hotel had recently reopened following extensive renovation works with some alterations still ongoing; there were a number of approved and ongoing current applications, including this planning application

 

d.    advised that full planning permission was being sought for internal alterations to the application site to create a new leisure pool and spa, including the excavation and construction of the pool, construction of internal partitions to form a sauna, changing facilities and gym together with associated drainage and services

 

e.    outlined the proposals in further detail as follows:

 

·       The application works would be located towards the rear of the building, adjacent to Eastgate.

·       A pool was previously proposed in this location as part of original applications for internal and external refurbishment works (2023/0057/FUL and 2023/0058/LBC), however, omitted to allow for the necessary archaeological work and investigations associated with the pool to take place.

·       The vents for the pool would be incorporated within the overall roof mounted plant approved as part of the previous applications. The previous applications also approved alterations to some of the windows on the Eastgate elevation, adjacent to the location of the pool. There were no external alterations proposed as part of this application.

 

f.      advised that this full application did not consider internal works such as the new internal partitions, however an accompanying listed building consent application had been submitted (2024/0088/LBC) which considered proposals in relation to the impact on buildings as designated heritage assets; whilst this full application considered the proposals in relation to other matters such as archaeology and residential amenity

 

g.    confirmed that the listed building consent application was also being presented this evening for determination by Members of Planning Committee

 

h.    reported that a number of objections had been received in relation to both applications, although many of the objections raised within the responses to the listed building consent application could not be considered there as they related to matters other than the impact on the heritage asset; these responses were therefore included within this report and the relevant material planning considerations raised would be taken into account as part of this application

 

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

 

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

 

·       Policy S42: Sustainable Urban Tourism

·       Policy S53: Design and Amenity

·       Policy S57: The Historic Environment

·       Policy S60: Protecting Biodiversity and Geodiversity

·       National Planning Policy Framework

·       Planning Practice Guidance        

 

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

 

 

l.      outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

13. concluded that:

 

 

Dr Samantha Stein addressed Planning Committee in objection to the proposed planning application. She covered the following main points:

 

·       She was disappointed the Planning Officer had commented that the proposals would make the site better than it was.

·       Why were we not doing our best here?

·       Below ground archaeology was an important part of our city.

·       The applicant had tried to undermine her personal integrity in writing, including her professional status and opinion on the planning application, information which a solicitor from the City of Lincoln Council had dismissed as not relevant.

·       She held a PhD in Archaeology and specialised in geoarchaeology.

·       She had given archaeological advice to many local authorities.

·       She was not against development.

·       There needed to be room for mitigation of archaeological remains.

·       The development had to be of public benefit and reasonable.

·       This development would consist of marginal benefit only to the applicant.

·       It was possible to build the pool above ground without digging to arrive at the development we wanted.

·       Why weren’t these options being used?

·       Would we even be at this point if she had not ‘poked’ the issue.

·       Revisions to the scheme only took place after her intervention.

·       Archaeology belonged to many and not the few.

·       Roman remains would be encountered if the proposals were approved in their current form and the planning authority would be in contravention of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·       This was a risk we did not need to take.

·       If the recommendation was to be accepted then medieval remains were not regarded as of significance, and they were.

 

Mr Paul Ponwaye addressed Planning Committee as agent on behalf of the applicant in support of the proposed planning application. He covered the following main points:

 

·       Contrary to speculation, the owner/applicant were not unsupportive developers.

·       The applicant cared deeply about ancient Lincoln and investment in the city.

·       The White Hart Hotel investment went way beyond those of previous owners of the property.

·       The scheme proposed long term sustainability for an important heritage asset.

·       This investment would never be recouped in the owners lifetime.

·       The owner was interested in history.

·       From the advice sought and given, no nationally significant archaeology would be affected by the development.

·       The City Archaeologist was satisfied with the conclusions reached.

·       Historic England were satisfied that the application had been dealt with appropriately by specialist local authority officers and there would be no nationally significant archaeology affected as a result of the development.

·       There would always be some loss, however, greater understanding would be gained of the area through detailed investigation.

·       Roman/Post Roman interface knowledge would be learnt.

·       The entire archaeological investigation focussed on not losing the history.

·       The White Hart development would represent long term sustainability of a local asset and also be of benefit to the local economy.

 

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail.

 

The following comments/questions emerged:

 

·       It was stated by the applicant there was no archaeology present of significant importance. If this was to be found, when would we stop and what would we ignore?

·       Were there any powers available to stop excavation for further investigation or were we reliant on being told this by the developers?

·       What measures would be employed to mitigate spa and pool noise?

·       What measures would be taken in relation to ventilation to prevent the historic building becoming damp?

·       Could reassurance be given to the assessment work guiding us.

·       Mr Ponwaye stated that the Council for British Archaeology was in support of the scheme, however Dr Stein contradicted this statement. Which was true?

·       The benefit to the public from building the pool may be marginal, however, there was greater benefit to the owner.

·       Members were recently informed at a meeting of the Historic Environment Advisory Panel that the site had already been evaluated and that nationally significant archaeology was considered to be below the depth of the proposed excavations for the pool.

·       Could an assurance be given that a geophysical survey of the site would be carried out?

·       It was great to make new discoveries through development however, archaeology needed to be protected.

·       Why couldn’t the pool be built on the ground floor with a step up to it?

·       A swimming pool did not bring in clientele.

·       If significant archaeological remains were found, would these be recorded or removed?

 

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

 

·       In terms of potential noise/ventilation/fume issues, this had been assessed by the Pollution Control Officer who was satisfied this had been satisfactorily addressed.

·       The overall position as assessed by planning officers was that the scheme provided an acceptable level of public benefit and was therefore compliant with the National Policy Framework and the Local Plan.

·       The remit of Planning Committee was to consider the planning application in front of it this evening rather than alternative schemes.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning introduced members to Alastair MacIntosh, City Archaeologist, who provided a thorough explanation of the archaeological excavations proposed, together with appropriate conditions to be imposed on grant of planning permission to ensure that impacts to archaeological remains were mitigated proportionally and that the relevant policy tests could be met.

 

Members asked whether if significant archaeological remains were found, would these be recorded or removed?

 

The City Archaeologist responded as follows:

 

·       A Written Scheme of Investigation for the fullest possible excavation of the site would be required by condition, which would be paid for by the developer.

·       Under the proposed Written Scheme of Investigation, the space to be occupied by the pool would be fully excavated by professional archaeologists to an appropriately stable level at or below the formation depth of the pool.

·       Some elements of the proposals, specifically underpinning and trench sheeting works, would need to be undertaken by engineering operatives rather than the archaeological team. These elements would be monitored archaeologically rather than being directly excavated.

·       The revised Written Scheme of Investigation would be assessed by the City Archaeologist on behalf of the City of Lincoln Council before approval to proceed was given. From that point onwards the works would be subject to regular monitoring by the City Archaeologist to ensure compliance with the approved method statement.

·       Artefacts recovered from the site would form part of a site archive and be transferred to Lincolnshire Museum Services for storage and management.

·       If Roman archaeology was found, there was a spectrum of significance to observe. It would be preserved primarily by record and in situ where possible. However, it was unlikely that nationally significant remains would be encountered during the majority of the development as these were expected to exist below the level of likely impact.

·       Roman remains might however be found within the area of the sump, which was proposed for a slightly deeper excavation in an area of 1.5 m by 1.5 m, in one corner of the wider pool area.

·       The revised Written Scheme of Investigation would include a process to help protect nationally significant archaeology should it be encountered

·       It might be possible to undertake a geophysical survey at the base of the excavation if the deposits at that level were appropriate. The revised Written Scheme of Investigation would contain provision for this should conditions allow.

 

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

 

·       Due to the low ceiling height, it would not be possible to construct a pool at ground level within the confines of the listed building.

·       The Council for British Archaeology were not a statutory consultee for this application and submitted an objection on their own initiative. Many of the points they raised were addressed by revised documents, but the objection remained. Historic England were also consulted and referred the planning authority back to the Council’s own experts on heritage matters..

·       The letter that contradicted support for the scheme was not received from a statutory consultee. Historic England were consulted as the Council’s expert on these matters

 

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

 

• Time limit of the permission
• Development in accordance with approved plans
• Development in accordance with WSI
• Submission of post-excavation timetable prior to first use of pool
• Submission of full archive and report following completion of works