Application 2016/1009/CXN Number: Site Address: Land public footpath and ... (the LTA), which has resulted in ... ‘high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing

Application Number:

2016/1009/CXN

Site Address: Land At Blankney Crescent, Lincoln, LN2 2EP

Target Date: 28th December 2016

Agent Name: Mr Oliver Roberts

Applicant Name: Mr Clive Pridgeon

Proposal: Application to vary Condition 2 of planning permission 2015/0903/RG3 alterations to house types, floor plans, elevations and layout.

Background - Site Location and Description Site Location The application site is situated in the Ermine East area to the north of the city between two roads that more or less run parallel with one another, i.e. the site has a frontage to the west of the site with Riseholme Road and to the east with Blankney Crescent. The Riseholme Road frontage is characterised by a fairly substantial hedgerow with substantial mature trees. There are a number of small breaks in the boundary the principal ones being where informal routes that have developed across the site to Riseholme Road, particularly in the southwest and northwest corners. There are also a number of mature trees within the centre of the site. The northern extent of the site is open and falls someway short of the car park to the Lincoln Imp public house, opposite No. 31 Blankney Crescent. To the south of the site, beyond a mixture of trees and other vegetation is land currently designated for use for allotments. Meanwhile, the site has a direct boundary with No. 20 Blankney Crescent to the east and the remainder of the properties within Blankney Crescent are separated from the site by a green area across the road. Planning History Directly Relevant to this Application The original application for this site (ref: 2015/0903/RG3) was approved by the Members of the Planning Committee in March of this year and was for 16No. Dwellings. As with this application, the majority of the properties were to be accessed via Blankney Crescent, either with a direct frontage or private drive; the remaining four plots being accessed via a separate private drive from Riseholme Road to the southwestern corner of the site. The proposals also included for the removal of a number of trees within the centre of the site but an indicative planting scheme proposed new trees between the rear boundaries of properties where they adjoin other properties within the site, i.e. between plots 4-8 and 15-16.

The Revisions to the Application The chief alterations are to the layout and house types within the development and are referred to in detail within the relevant sections of the report. However, in summary, the position and design of the private drives are amended and the layout includes a greater use of curtilage parking. The house types are altered to omit flat roofs and projecting angular windows and replace these with gables and normal windows in reveal. As with the original application, the properties within Plot Nos. 1-10, which have a direct frontage with Blankney Crescent, would incorporate five 2-bedroom properties, four 3-bedroom properties and one 4-bedroom property. In terms of Plot Nos. 11 and 12, which are accessed via a private drive between Plot Nos. 8 and 9, would be two 3-bedroom properties. Finally, the four properties accessed via a private drive from Riseholme Road would incorporate three 3-bedroom and a single 4-bedroom property. Site History

Reference: Description Status Decision Date:

2015/0903/RG3 Erection of 16 No: two storey houses and associated parking.

Deemed Consent With Conditions

13th May 2016

2016/1095/PROW To determine an application for a public path order to stop up a public footpath and establish a new Public footpath under s.257 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990

Not determined Not determined

Case Officer Site Visit Undertaken on 8th November 2016. Policies Referred to Policies 34, 35, 39, 40, 44C, 45A, 48B of the City of Lincoln Local Plan Adopted 1998; and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Issues The original permission for residential development within the application site, approved earlier this year, agreed the principle of the development and the majority of the impacts of the proposals remain consistent with original proposals. In light of this, it is specifically necessary to consider the implications of the proposals upon the character of the area; highway safety and traffic capacity; and residential amenity. However, as the grant of permission for this application could effectively provide a new planning permission, it would also be necessary to determine whether any of the planning conditions imposed upon the original application have been satisfied. This will be dealt with under the heading of Discharge of Planning Conditions. Finally, it would be necessary to weigh the potential implications of the proposals in relation to one another and the original permission. This would be dealt with in the Planning Balance. The main issues to consider are therefore:

1) Implications of the Proposals upon the Character and Appearance of the Area;

3) Implications of the Proposals upon Highway Safety and Traffic Capacity; 2) Implications of the Proposals upon Residential Amenity; 4) Discharge of Planning Conditions and Other Matters; and 5) The Planning Balance.

Consultations Consultations were carried out in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement, adopted May 2014. Statutory Consultation Responses

Consultee Comment

Noel Tobin

No Response Received

Lee George


Lincoln Civic Trust


Paul Clifton


Councillor Yvonne Bodger


Councillor Naomi Tweddle


Councillor Liz Maxwell


Jenny Crane


Responses received from the Highway Authority, Environmental Health and Lincolnshire Police are copied to this report. Public Consultation Responses No responses received. Consideration of Issues 1) Implications of the Proposals upon the Character and Appearance of the

Area a) Relevant Planning Policy So far as this issue is concerned, the Council, in partnership with English Heritage, have undertaken the Lincoln Townscape Appraisal (the LTA), which has resulted in the systematic identification of 105 separate “character areas” within the City. The application site lies within the Ermine East Character Area. Whilst the associated LTA for this area does not have the status of a formally-adopted development plan policy, the Planning Inspector for an appeal in December 2012 found that it “represents a valuable tool to enable appropriate decisions on individual planning applications to be made, in support of “saved” Local Plan Policy 34, which refers to design standards and expects new buildings to meet a number of criterion in relation to buildings themselves, the overall layout and relationship with neighbouring properties. Similarly, Policy 35 refers to the design of new residential areas and suggests that the design of these should incorporate a “strong sense of local identity”, as well as being “safe, secure, pleasant, sustainable, efficient to live in and move around in, efficient and reasonably economical to build and maintain, in harmony with its surroundings, and accessible for all, including people with impaired mobility and vision.” These policies would to be in line with the policy principles outlined in Paragraphs 17, 58, 60, 61 and 64 of the Framework. Moreover, the Framework states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and is indivisible from good planning. Design is to contribute positively to making places better for people (para. 56). To accomplish this development is to establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live and responding to local character and history (para. 58). It is also proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness (para. 60).

b) Assessment of the Implications of the Proposals The revisions to the house types are principally to remove flat-roofed feature projections and replace them with more conventional gables. Whilst there aren’t any gables in the street at present, there were not any projecting elements either. However, all properties in the street are gable-ended so the inclusion of gables per se would not be at odds with the established character of the area.

Approved and Proposed 3-bedroom Front Façade

In addition, the design of the dwellings individually and collectively through their composition and revised layout would continue to make a positive contribution to the character of the area. Moreover, the revised location of the private access road from Riseholme Road and layout of the properties around the other access road from Blankney Crescent would not be significantly different in terms of their rationale when compared with the original approved application. These are shown together below but larger in scale at the end of this report.

Approved and Proposed Amendments to the Layout of the Site

Approved (application: 2015/0903/RG3) Proposed (Current Application)

Furthermore, the following street scene images also show how the building groupings would work:-

Plots Nos. 1 to 8, facing toward Blankney Crescent

Plot Nos. 13 to 16, facing toward Riseholme Road

c) Summary on this Issue The application submission would demonstrate that a well-designed development would be accommodated, which would be in compliance with the thrust of the Framework. As such, officers consider that there would not appear to be grounds to resist the development in this regard.

2) Implications of the Proposals upon Amenity a) Relevant Planning Policy In its Core Principles, the Framework states that development should seek to secure ‘high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings’ (para 17, point 4). Meanwhile, Policy 34 of the Local Plan refers to the amenities which occupiers of neighbouring properties may reasonably expect to enjoy and suggests that these must not be harmed by, or as a result of, the development. An appeal in May this year referred to Policy 34 and the Inspector suggested that “as this policy is consistent with the amenity requirements of the Framework, I afford it considerable weight” (appeal ref: APP/M2515/A/14/2212911). It is the belief of officers that this policy would be in line with the policy principles outlined in Paragraphs 17, 59 and 123 of the NPPF. In particular, Paragraph 123 of the Framework suggests that “decisions should aim to…avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development”. b) Revisions to the Application The principal alterations to the proposals that could affect the residential amenities that the occupiers of existing and proposed residents would expect to enjoy are brought about by the nature of the revisions to the house types within the scheme and the changes to the layout of the properties. c) The Implications of the Revised Proposals The window to window relationships of the properties situated within the site would be largely the same as with the original application. However, as the properties in Plot Nos. 15 and 16 have moved further northwards, there is a closer relationship to Plot Nos. 4, 5 and 6. However, in the context of the proposals previously approved, it is considered that the windows within Plot No. 16 would only facilitate very acute views directly towards windows in Plot Nos. 5 and 6 and the distance between windows in Plot No. 4 would be more akin to similar relationships already approved. Meanwhile in terms of Plot No. 10, the proposals are to omit the first floor landing window which originally faced eastwards. The original layout of this window in the property caused concerns to be raised by the occupant of No. 20 Blankney Crescent. Although this change was not necessary, nonetheless it is considered that the concerns of the occupants of No. 20 have been mitigated. Similarly, the change in the height of the building to closest to No. 20 would be to result in a higher roof pitch for this pair of dwellings. It is considered that this increase and the minor decrease in the eaves height and depth of Plot No. 10 would not result in additional massing that would be harmful to the occupants of the aforementioned property due to the spacing and orientation of the existing and proposed dwelling.

d) Summary on this Issue Taking all the above in to account, it is considered that the revised plans submitted as part of the application would demonstrate that the proposed development could still be accommodated within the site in the manner suggested without causing unacceptable harm to the amenities of the occupants of the existing and proposed dwellings. Moreover, upon the basis of orientation and position of the buildings, their proximity to existing development, the scale of the buildings and location of windows, officers are satisfied that there would not be unacceptable harm caused to the occupants of these properties in terms of the amenities that they would expect to enjoy. There would therefore be compliance with Local Plan policies, as well as the amenity principles in the Framework. However, there is no reason to omit the relevant planning conditions protecting amenity (Condition Nos. 9, 10 and 13), including the control of working hours during the construction of the development. 3) Implications of the Proposals upon Highway Safety and Traffic Capacity a) Relevant Planning Policy A number of policies are relevant to the access, parking and highway design of residential proposals. In the context of Paragraph 32 of the Framework, the residual cumulative impacts of the development would need to be severe for proposals to warrant refusal. Meanwhile, Paragraph 35 requires that: “developments should be located and designed where practical to [amongst other things] give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities; and should be located and designed where practical to create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones". This is supported by policies in the Local Plan, including Policy 34 which refers to vehicle and cycle parking and making satisfactory provision for access by means other than the car; and Policy 4, which outlines that within “areas of new housing developments, safe, user-friendly facilities should be provided for both pedestrians and cyclists and, wherever possible, these should be linked directly with the local or City-wide networks of footpaths and cycleways or should contribute to the development of those networks.” b) Revisions to the Application The proposals are to reposition the access to Plot Nos. 13-16 fronting Riseholme Road and the internal layout of the private drive to enable the access to be position further north, between the trees opposite Plot No. 16, rather than opposite Plot No. 13. The revisions also include a formal area for turning to the frontage of Plot No. 13 and parking for the properties would be within the plots, not a communal format as outlined previously. The other alterations to access are to the private drive serving Plot Nos. 8, 11 and 12. This would be reconfigured slightly to include a slight angled approach then straightening parallel with the eastern boundary of the site. The highway would be wider as there would be a footpath either side for the majority of the driveway.

In addition, the layout of Plot Nos. 8, 9, 11 and 12 would be revised to include parking within the plots themselves. Plot Nos. 11 and 12 would move slightly northwards to allow parking either side but the gardens within the development would alter in shape and size to accommodate these changes. The principal changes would be to Plot Nos. 8 and 15, which would be smaller but the garden to Plot No. 9 would increase as a result. c) The Implications of the Revised Proposals The access position on Riseholme Road is similar in nature to the previously approved details but is arguably better located in terms of its impact upon the users of the highway as it is now separated from the bus shelter to the south of the site and visibility would be maintained in either direction. The ability for vehicles to turn within the private drive without utilising the parking spaces is also beneficial and the parking spaces themselves would be more accessible being situated within the curtilage of each property. The alterations to the other private drive are also beneficial, as spaces here would also be provided for parking directly within the curtilage of the properties that they relate to. Following consultation with the County Council as Highway Authority no objection has been received from their officers with respect to traffic capacity or highway safety in the area. Consequently, in the absence of evidence from the relevant authority to suggest matters of congestion or safety are so severe that refusal is warranted in relation to traffic generation or road safety from the revisions to the proposed development, there would not appear to be justification to do so. d) Summary in Relation to this Issue The revisions to the access and parking arrangements for the site are considered to be acceptable in the context of their impact upon highway safety and traffic capacity. Officers therefore recommend that the revisions to the development of this site should not be prevented or refused on transport grounds. However, as previously controlled by Condition No. 16, it would be pertinent to ensure that the private drives are provided as agreed. 4) Discharge of Planning Conditions and Other Matters None of the planning conditions imposed on the original grant of planning permission have been agreed. However, as the plans submitted with the current application change a number of matters relevant to the conditions, these can be amended to take into account the revisions shown on the plans:

the revised layout appearance and materials of construction can be agreed by revised plans included in the relevant condition (Condition No. 2);

the consideration of archaeology, contamination of the site, construction management and noise mitigation can be agreed through the original planning conditions imposed (Condition Nos. 3 to 10) with no revisions required;

landscaping can be agreed through the revised layout details and further submissions as previously outlined (Condition No. 11)

electric vehicle recharging points and public open space management can continue to be agreed through conditions requiring these details (Condition Nos. 12 and 13 respectively);

the private drive layouts can be constructed in accordance with the revised details (Condition No. 16);

there are no new trees proposed to be removed so ecological mitigation and arboricultural works (including protection) can be carried out in accordance with details previously required (Condition Nos. 14, 17 and 18).

In addition to the above, the applicant is currently revising the approved drainage strategy for the site to reflect the changes in the site layout (Condition No. 15). This would need to be agreed by the County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority. If Members are minded to approve the application, officers would recommend that authority be delegated to the Planning Manager to address this matter. Financial Implications The proposals could positively impact upon the locally economy through the construction and maintenance of the properties, as well as the future spending patterns of the occupants of the premises. Legal Implications The footway leading across the site needs to be stopped up and replaced by the footway to the north of the site. This is being considered with the separate application on this agenda. Application Negotiated Either at Pre-Application or During Process of Application Yes – pre-application discussions held with council officers. Equality Implications None. Application Determined within Target Date Yes, subject to this application being determined by the Planning Committee. Recommendation That the application be Granted Conditionally, subject to authority being delegated to the Planning Manager in order to address the outstanding matters in relation to site drainage.

Conditions Amend following conditions:- 1) Timeframe to 13/05/2019; 2) Plan conformity; 11) Landscaping; 15) Drainage Strategy; and 16) Provision of private drives. That the following conditions are maintained:- 3) Archaeology; 4) to 8) Contaminated land; 9) Construction Management Plan; 10) Noise mitigation; 12) Electric vehicle charging; 13) Management and maintenance of amenity space; 14) Ecological enhancement; 17) and 18) Tree Planting and protection; Report by: Planning Manager

Application Plans

Existing Site Plan

Proposed Site Layout (Current Application)

Existing Approved Site Layout (2015/0903/RG3)

Plot Nos. 1-2 Floor Plans

Ground Floor First Floor

Plot Nos. 1 & 2 Elevations

Front Elevation

Rear Elevation

Plot No. 1 Side Elevation

Plot No. 2 Side Elevation Plot Nos. 3-6 Floor Plans

Ground Floor First Floor

Plot Nos. 3-6 Elevations

Front Elevation

Rear Elevation

Plot Nos. 3 & 5 Side Elevation

Plot Nos. 4 & 6 Elevation

Plot Nos. 7 & 8 Floor Plans

Ground Floor Plan

Fir1st Floor Plan


Front Elevation

Rear Elevation

Side Elevation No. 7

Side Elevation No. 8

Plot Nos. 9 & 10 and 13 & 14 Floor Plans

Ground Floor

First Floor

Plot Nos. 9 & 10 and 13 & 14 Elevations

Front Elevation

Rear Elevation



Plot Nos. 9 & 13 Side Elevations


Ground Floor

First Floor


Front Elevation

Rear Elevation





Front Elevation

Rear Elevation

Plot 15 Side Elevation

Plot 16 Side Elevation

Site Photographs

View south along Blankney Crescent from northern extent of application site

View southeast across the parking bay to the frontage of existing

properties in Blankney Crescent

View south across the site frontage

View south from within the site

View east across the site towards Blankney Crescent

View north across the site towards Blankney Crescent

View south along the site frontage with Riseholme Road

View north along the site frontage with Riseholme Road

View east along the existing footpath towards Blankney Crescent

View northwest across the site towards Riseholme Road

View west across the site towards Riseholme Road

View northeast across the site frontage to Blankney Crescent

Responses Received to the Application

Lincolnshire Police Thank you for your correspondence and opportunity to comment on the proposed development. I have studied the online plans. Lincolnshire Police has no formal objections to this Variation to a planning application Please do not hesitate to contact me should you need further information or clarification. Crime prevention advice is given free without the intention of creating a contract. Neither the Home Office nor the Police Service takes any legal responsibility for the advice given. However, if the advice is implemented it will reduce the opportunity for crimes to be committed. Yours sincerely, John Manuel MA BA (Hons) PGCE Dip Bus. Force Crime Prevention Design Advisor Lincolnshire County Council (Highway Authority & Lead Local Flood Authority NO OBS - Having given due regard to the appropriate local and national planning policy guidance (in particular the National Planning Policy Framework), Lincolnshire County Council (as Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority) has concluded that the proposed development is acceptable. Accordingly, Lincolnshire County Council (as Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority) does not wish to object to this planning application. HI00 - No objections to variations, same conditions apply as previously approved 2015/0903/RG3.

The Council’s Pollution Control Officer Further to your consultation on the above application, I would confirm that I have no objections to the proposed variation in terms of contaminated land, air quality, noise or other environmental impact.

Documents

Application 2016/1009/CXN Number: Site Address: Land public footpath and ... (the LTA), which has resulted in ... ‘high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing