Agenda item

(Councillor Wood rejoined her seat for the remainder of the meeting.)

 

The Assistant Director of Planning:

 

a.    referred to the application site, a large corner plot with Sewell Road to the north and Lindum Terrace to the east and south, bounded by a high brick wall with mature trees within and around the perimeter of the site

 

b.    confirmed that this site within the Lindum and Arboretum Conservation Area was currently vacant after the original building, which sat to the west, was demolished on safety grounds after numerous vandalism and arson incidents and had since become overgrown, although, to the east side of the site, lay the fragments of the former Eastcliff House Grotto

 

c.     reported that the site was previously owned alongside 10-11 Lindum Terrace, located to the west, with both accommodating medical facilities; in 2016 planning permission was granted for the creation of a medical village on the two sites and 30-32 Sewell Road, although this was never implemented

 

d.    highlighted the City Council’s Principal Conservation Officer’s description of the site within a Victorian suburb characterised by large individually designed and often elaborate properties set behind brick walls, within the setting of the grade II listed St Annes Bedehouses and 27 and 29 Sewell Road; these properties sat to the north of the site with 10-11 Lindum Terrace to the west

 

e.    advised that planning permission was sought as follows:

 

·       To erect two, 4 storey buildings accommodating a total of 42 apartments; 21 in each block.

·       There would be 8 one beds and 34 two beds with 35 accompanying parking spaces.

·       Building 1 would be located to the front of the site, facing Lindum Terrace, with Building 2 towards the rear.

·       Associated works included cycle and bin storage, a temporary access within the boundary wall, a new pedestrian access within the boundary wall, tree removal and landscaping.

 

f.      advised that prior to the submission of the application the proposals were subject to extensive pre-application discussions between the applicant, agent, planning officers and the conservation officer

 

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

 

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

 

·      Policy S1      The Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy

·      Policy S2      Growth Levels and Distribution

·      Policy S3      Housing in the Lincoln Urban Area, Main Towns and Market Towns

·      Policy S6      Design Principles for Efficient Buildings

·      Policy S7      Reducing Energy Consumption - Residential Development

·      Policy S12     Water Efficiency and Sustainable Water Management

·      Policy NS18  Electric Vehicle Charging

·      Policy S21     Flood Risk and Water Resources

·      Policy S22     Affordable Housing

·      Policy S45     Strategic Infrastructure Requirements

·      Policy S47     Accessibility and Transport

·      Policy S49     Parking Provision

·      Policy S53     Design and Amenity

·      Policy S54     Health and Wellbeing

·      Policy S56     Development on Land Affected by Contamination

·      Policy S57     The Historic Environment

·      Policy S59     Green and Blue Infrastructure Network

·      Policy S60     Protecting Biodiversity and Geodiversity 

·      Policy S61     Biodiversity Opportunity and Delivering Measurable Net Gains

·      Policy S66     Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows

·      Supplementary Planning Document- Central Lincolnshire Developer Contributions

·      Planning Practice Guidance: Viability

·      National Planning Policy Framework

 

i.      advised of the issues to be assessed in relation to the planning application, as follows:

 

·      Principle of use

·      Developer contributions

·      Visual amenity and impact on character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of listed buildings

·      Residential amenity

·      Trees, Biodiversity Net Gain, landscaping and biodiversity

·      Access, parking and highways

·      Flood risk and drainage

·      Energy efficiency

·      Archaeology

·      Contaminated land

 

j.      outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

k.     referred to the Update Sheet circulated at tonight’s meeting which contained a further proposed landscaping plan and key received after the original agenda papers were published

 

l.      concluded that:

 

·      The principle of the use of the site for residential purposes was considered to be acceptable.

·      An independently assessed viability appraisal had concluded that the development would not be viable if it were to provide S106 contributions.

·      An overage clause within the proposed S106 would allow the viability of the scheme to be revisited in the future as it came forward, and if viability had improved, this would give the council the ability to recover some or all of the lost contributions.

·      The development would relate well to the site and surroundings in relation to siting, height, scale, massing and design.

·      The character and appearance of the conservation area would be preserved and the proposals would also preserve the setting of nearby listed buildings.

·      The proposals would not result in harm to neighbour’s amenity as a result of the built development or associated noise from external plant.

·      The development would also provide an acceptable level of amenity for future occupants.

·      Matters relating to trees, Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), landscaping and biodiversity; access, parking and highways; flood risk and drainage; energy efficiency; archaeology and contamination had been appropriately considered by officers against local and national policies and by 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 S1, S2, S3, S6, S7, S12, NS18, S21, S47, S53, S56, S57, S60, S61 and S66 as well as guidance within the NPPF.

 

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail.

 

The following comments and questions emerged from discussions held:

 

·       The cladding was not attractive although the overall design of the building was good.

·       In relation to a clawback scheme for S106 contributions to be paid later down the line if this became viable, it was pleasing to see that an arrangement had been reached to give legal weight to employ this scheme to manage economic changes arising.

·       Was the high wall staying as part of the development?

·       Was there provision for alternative modes of transport?

·       Was there enough car parking provision?

·       There was a fine balance of opinion as to why the developer was not paying full S106 contributions if the development was to bring more people into the area. The integrity of any developer unable to honour their obligations should be questioned.

·       The building design on Sewell’s Road side depicting rows of chimney pots was pleasing/traditional.

·       Loss of S106 contributions was a real thorn, however new housing was urgently required.

·       Was it possible to save the Victorian cement from older times taken out the old building?.It could be researched, restored and relocated elsewhere even if not on the site.

·       Officers should go back and negotiate a scheme which offered affordable housing, of which we were so desperately in need.

·       It was likely that residents only parking would be required at extra cost to the local authority and residents.

·       The development would create a strain on local resources. S106 contributions should be paid rather than the applicant shelving responsibility onto the local community

·       The architecture of the building was pleasing, with more greenery to support the local environment.

·       Would there be electric vehicle charging points provided?

·       Would some properties have more than one car?

·       The building was a lot higher than existing surrounding properties.

 

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

 

·       There was very little cladding on the proposed build, it was mostly contrasting brickwork as depicted on the photographs within the power point presentation.

·       In terms of the clawback, assumptions were based on estimates of end values. This could change over a period of time and we may be faced with a different economic picture. If material prices dropped/land values increased, for example, this would be a good reason to re-examine the situation.

·       The high wall would be retained. Removal of some self-seeded trees may help.

·       There was not 1-1 parking, it may cause potential problems further down the line.

·       There was a cycle store for 26 bicycles which was considered adequate for the site.

·       There was a fine balance to be drawn here as officers. Should we recommend the scheme to you as an excellent outcome? There was no provision of affordable housing which Planning Committee may not support. The option here was for no dwellings at all at this site or 42 dwellings without S106 contributions. It was a decision for Planning Committee to determine.

·       Electric vehicle charging points were provided as part of building regulations.

·       The scale of the building did run through and was not taller than existing properties.

·       A future bigger build may make the scheme more viable but also cause potential further issues.

 

The chair advised that the remit of Planning Committee was to determine the application before them this evening. He considered this was a good development. We needed all types of accommodation. Being close to the hospital it may encourage more people to work there.

 

It was moved, seconded and put to the vote that Planning permission be granted as per the officer’s report recommendation. The motion was lost.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused.

 

Reason:

 

·       Failure to provide S106 funding and unsustainable.