Agenda item

The Officer introduced the application for up to 20 apartments, noting that the scale and layout were considered before the Committee at this stage. The proposed layout was presented, running around the corner of the junction. The scale showed a standard reduction in height, and 3D visuals were displayed.

It was noted that the site had previously received planning permission for flats and apartments, with the most recent application in 2017. The site, subject to this application, had another application recommended for approval by Officers but was refused by the Committee, leading to an appeal. The appeal was dismissed due to the site's contribution to Gainsborough, being within the conservation area and the setting of nearby listed buildings.

These circumstances were highlighted as considerations for the Committee's determination. Despite the site's allocation for development, Officers were unable to support the application due to these specific circumstances.

A point of information was raised regarding the introduction of the application to WL/2023, noting that it was labelled as 2024 at the top. It was clarified that the target decision date was 29 December 2023. The Officer confirmed that the original determination date was correct and explained that the application had gone through various Officers, resulting in its long-standing status.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for his introduction and invited Mr James Hartley, who was registered to speak on behalf of the applicant, to take his seat.

Mr Hartley thanked the Chairman and Councillors and provided an overview of the planning history of the site. It was noted that a planning application for 24 apartments and five shops was granted in January 2006. A subsequent application for a four-story block of 19 apartments was refused at Officer level in September 2014. Another application for a four-story block of 17 apartments was granted at Committee in April 2016. A change of use application for the land to a park was refused at Committee.

A named Planning Officer had left the authority in May of the previous year, contributing to the delay. By the end of the Officer’s involvement, Mr Hartley stated, matters such as biodiversity net gain, highways, flood risk, drainage, and affordable housing had been positively addressed and approved by the Officer and relevant consultees. One public objection was received from the tenant at number one's middle terrace regarding natural light. Two consultee objections were noted, one from the Town Council concerning highways, which was superseded by the Lincolnshire County Council’s Highways department's non-objection, and one from the conservation department.

The conservation objection related to the loss of green space and the impact on neighbouring assets, considering the proposal as less than substantial harm under paragraph 208 of the NPPF and policy S57 of the CLLP. This harm must be weighed against public benefits. The Britannia Works Conservation Area Appraisal identified the site as a weak corner and poor open space, emphasizing the need for managed change to retain the special character of the conservation area.

A previous application for a pocket park was refused in January 2021. The last residential application, approved in June 2017, was for 17 apartments in a four-story building. The current proposal included two, three, and four-story elements to mimic and continue the mass of adjoining buildings on North Street and Spital Terrace, reducing the perceived and actual mass compared to the previously approved proposal.

An email was sent to the Conservation Officer for West Lindsey District Council, requesting further correspondence, and an Officer’s email from November 2023 was referenced, indicating no immediate concerns in principle. The objection to any form of development on the site was noted as an immediate concern. Mr Hartley expressed willingness to work collaboratively with the Council to achieve a satisfactory outcome, emphasising that appearance was not a matter for approval at this stage, and that he would be willing to work with the Conservation Officer.

The Chairman thanked Mr Hartley and, noting that there were no comments from the Officers, invited the Committee to begin their discussion.

It was acknowledged that developments within the town had progressed since the 2017 application to develop the corner for housing. The District Council was involved in creating extra green spaces within the town. Concerns were raised about the density of the proposed housing, similar to those expressed in 2017. Although Lincolnshire County Council Highways had not objected, the proximity to the roundabout and pedestrian crossing was noted as a potential issue. The Town Council had provided clear guidance on the matter.

The site was part of the conservation area, and the refusal of the application to develop it as a pocket park had been upheld on appeal. The need for this type of accommodation was evidenced by the Council's housing register. It was also noted that EHSL was not a registered provider, which was important for affordable housing or specialist accommodation.

Concerns were echoed, and the lack of local member input was noted. The site was familiar to some Members, and whilst the building was appreciated for its architecture, it was considered to be in the wrong location.

The application was described as a case of repeated submissions over years without any development taking place. The government’s push for housing was acknowledged, but the continuous back and forth of applications was highlighted. The inclusion of one bedroom flats was appreciated, but the refusal was supported due to the appeal and the land's previous grant. It was felt that the opportunity for development on this land had passed.

The building's design was considered unsuitable for the area. It was suggested that the applicant should work with the Conservation Officer to develop a more appropriate proposal.

On taking the vote, it was agreed that planning permission be REFUSED on the basis that the application had not demonstrated the appropriateness of the location; it had not adequately addressed the concerns regarding density and proximity to the roundabout and pedestrian crossing; and insufficient detail had been provided regarding the impact on the conservation area.