Site: Doubletree by Hilton Hotel, Brayford Wharf North, Lincoln, LN1 1YW

Application No: 2015/0754/F

Target Date: 01 January 2016

Agent: Core Architects

Applicant: Doubletree by Hilton Hotel

Development: Demolition of existing former NHS Healthcare Services building to accommodate extension to rear of Doubletree Hilton (REVISED PLANS)

Background Site Location and Description The application site includes the existing Doubletree by Hilton hotel and the land to the northern side of the building and the frontage of Newland. This is currently occupied by a part three and four storey grey brick flat-roofed building that was last occupied by the NHS. There is access to its rear for parking on a hard surfaced area. To the west is Viking House, a five-storey office block, and to the southwest is Mill House, a building of six storeys but which incorporates plant and other structures upon its roof. This means it is more comparative in size with the hotel. Meanwhile, to the east is the grade II listed building, 78-88 Newland, whilst to the northwest is a restaurant with residential accommodation above. The site is located within The West Parade and Brayford Conservation Area, Newland Character Area with regards to the Lincoln Townscape Assessment (LTA) and the Central Lincoln Parking Zone. The Proposals The proposals are to demolish the frontage building to Newland and erect an extension to the hotel to include further guest rooms, conferencing and function space. In terms of form, the first and second floors of the extension towards Newland oversail the ground floor egress with an angled frontage which tapers from the northwest to northeast from the building line of the listed building and restaurant. The building then progressively steps back from the frontage to the roof terrace serving the fifth floor of the building. The aforementioned egress means that vehicles would access the hotel from Brayford Wharf North and exit onto Newland. The parking is extended at ground floor and a mezzanine area utilised to provide additional spaces. Floors one to three focus upon guest accommodation and floors four and five maintain their mix of guest and conference / function rooms. Site History The hotel was granted planning permission by virtue of application 2008/0042/F, which was approved by the Members of the Planning Committee in early 2009.

There is also an application imminent for the extension and alteration of Viking House and Mill House. Case Officer Site Visit Undertaken on 22/12/2015 Issues In this instance the main issues to consider are: 1) The Principle of the Development; 2) Implications of the Proposals upon Amenity; 3) Air Quality; 4) Sustainable Access, Highway Safety and Traffic Capacity; 5) Implications of the Proposals upon Archaeology; 6) Other Matters; and 7) The Planning Balance. Policies Referred to

Policies 5, 8, 18, 19F, 34, 40, 55 and 84 of the City of Lincoln Local Plan 1998 and the National Planning Policy Framework. Consultations Consultations were carried out in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement, adopted May 2014. Responses Full copies of relevant responses are copied as part of this report and referred to in detail where they relate to the specific issues identified above. However, there were no observations from the Council's Licensing or the Environment Agency. Consideration of Issues 1) The Principle of the Development a) Relevant Planning Policy i) Policy in Relation to the Use The responsibility of the authority with respect to heritage assets is outlined in the Framework and the 1990 Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) enjoins the planning system to seek joint and simultaneous gains across the three mutually dependent dimensions of sustainable development: social, economic and environmental. The overall planning balance must look across all three strands. Moreover, as expressed in Paragraph 8:

“These roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. Economic growth can secure higher social and environmental standards, and well-designed buildings and places can improve the lives of people and communities. Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.” The wider principles expected of sustainable development are expanded upon in Paragraph 9 and Paragraph 14 of the Framework goes on to suggest that “at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means:

approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

Crucially in terms of this application, the footnote to the final bullet point outlines that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in the context of designated heritage assets, which includes Conservation Areas. However, the proposals still need to be considered in relation to the policies of the Framework. The Framework (Paragraph 9) sees “seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life” as being important to the delivery of sustainable development, through “replacing poor design with better design” and “improving the conditions in which people live” amongst others. Furthermore, the core principles of the Framework (Paragraph 17) “encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value”; and conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations. Policy 18 of the Local Plan (Development in Mixed-Use Areas) encourages a mixture of uses in the area but lists the uses that are deemed to be acceptable in such areas. The policy suggests that Hotels are appropriate subject to a number of criterion, including compliance with the criterion referred to in Policy 19F which relates to the Brayford and Glory Hole Revival Area. This also encourages a mixture of uses. Policy 84 deals more specifically with the development of hotels and also suggests that permission will be granted in such areas.

ii) Policy in Relation to the Implications upon Heritage Assets The Council, in partnership with English Heritage (now Historic England), 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 Newland Character Area and is described as such in the LTA:-

“Newland continues to serve as a busy road in the west of the city centre. Linked to major relief roads to the east and west, the role of the road has increasingly become that of a thoroughfare rather than a gateway to the city. Several buildings have converted rear yards for car parking, shifting their main entrances to the rear. In addition a number of buildings on the Brayford have their rear exits out onto Newland, leading to a sense of inactivity at odds with the role of Newland as an historic gateway. The blocking-out of windows either through internal screening or the boarding-up of vacant premises exacerbates the issue and contributes to the poor use of some pathways.”

While 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. This policy would to be in line with the policy principles outlined in 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). In terms of the policy framework relevant to the protection of the Conservation Area, Policy 18(2) of the Local Plan suggests that if the development is to take place within a Conservation Area it must preserve or enhance the character or appearance of that Area.

The Council is duty bound to adhere to legislation contained within section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990 - In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. It would need to be in accordance with guidance contained within the Framework. In particular, Paragraph 131 requires that in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Meanwhile, Paragraph 137 which requires that Local planning

authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas to enhance or better reveal their significance; and Paragraph 138 requires that loss of a building which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area should be treated either as substantial harm under Paragraph 133 or less than substantial harm under Paragraph 134, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area. b) The Acceptability of the Proposed Use and its Implications upon

Designated Heritage Assets

There are a number of considerations affecting the principle of development, with the other important aspects of the abovementioned policies being referred to in detail elsewhere in the report. Consequently, the application must be weighed up alongside these other factors. i) Responses Received in Relation to the Proposals Historic England were reconsulted on the application and welcome the reduction in the height of the stair tower but maintain their advice regarding the remainder of the building. A full copy of their initial response is attached and referred to where relevant in this report. Owners of adjacent property and the Lincoln Civic Trust have also objected to the application due to the design of the Newland elevation being out of keeping with its context, including the street scene. It is suggested that the building will set a precedent for future similar development of the frontage sites along Newland and that the building would be out-of-scale and character with the Newland frontage. This is considered to be harmful to the conservation area and setting of listed buildings. The Trust expands upon these comments through appraisal of the size of windows, which they suggest do not fit with those elsewhere in the street. Officers consider that it is difficult to be critical of this aspect of the design of the building for the reasons identified above but would note that the windows are only marginally larger than those in the adjacent listed terrace. ii) The Suitability of the Use in Terms of Land Use Designation Clearly the proposed extension to the hotel would be a suitable use in the context of the range of uses outlined in local plan policies, in particular, the use has the potential to contribute to the overall vitality of the area and to create a purpose and presence extending beyond normal shopping hours. In so doing it would maintain the mixed-use character of the area and would accord with Policies 18, 19F and 84 of the Local Plan. iii) The Significance of the Listed Building and its Current Setting within the

Conservation Area The application site lies within the West Parade and Brayford conservation area, which was designated in 1983 by the City of Lincoln Council as an area of special architectural or historic interest the character and appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. To the west of the site are Nos. 78-88 Newland, which is a grade II listed terrace building.

The site is also located within the Newland Character Area with regards to the Lincoln Townscape Assessment (LTA). The LTA, which is referenced above, is informative in terms of the progression of the area and records that during the Early Industrial Period (1750 – 1845) the area was resettled as a high status suburb. It is clear that several relatively large residences survive in the current townscape, which emphasise the former prominence of Newland. The properties are comparatively more ornate with loosely classical decorative elements, stone dressings and bay or oriel windows. The buildings are relatively rare in Lincoln, with few other properties, let alone groups of buildings, surviving from the period. Nos. 78-88 Newland represent one of these surviving properties and date from the early 19th century. They originally comprise a terrace of 6 dwellings in the neo classical style and are now a combination of houses, surgeries and offices. The Principal Conservation Officer’s description of the building, highlights the intentional prominence of this building within the street scene and its high status. Moreover, it is considered to have high architectural and historic value. The existing building situated within the application site current adversely affects the setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of the conservation due to its architectural form, composition and expression. Furthermore, it is also in a deteriorated state and relates poorly to the high quality of the listed building and much of the surrounding historic building stock, including the County Council’s offices on the opposite side of the road. iii) The Implications of the Proposals upon the Setting of the Listed Building and

the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area Further to the above, it is important to consider the impact that the loss of the existing building would have upon the conservation area and adjacent listed building, as heritage assets. In this instance, officers agree with Historic England (HE) that the building has limited significance. In fact, architecturally, one could suggest that it is poor and does not contribute positively to either asset. Moreover, officers do not attribute the same level of importance that HE does to the impact of the external interaction of the building with the street. They suggest that the building line is strong along Newland in terms of the parallel nature of buildings and that the proposed scheme should follow suit. Whilst one could insist upon such a course of action, this would fail to address a further negative impact of site upon the conservation area, i.e. the unnecessary end stop created by the exposure of the end gable of No. 94-96 Newland

View west along Newland across the frontage of the listed terrace and restaurant Members will observe from the photograph below that there is evidence to suggest that the building occupying the site previously have been further forward in line with No. 94-96 Newland. The reinstatement of the building in this location was considered at pre-application but it was felt that it would be more appropriate to allow breathing space for the listed building. As such, officers have not insisted that the applicant amend the scheme to address the concern of HE. As poignantly noted by the Council’s Principal Conservation Officer, re-establishing the status of Newland as an important gateway into the city is crucial given the current arrangement and form of buildings which lead to leakage and a lack of activity in the street frontage. Moreover, the replacement of the NHS building with an extension to the Doubletree Hilton creates the opportunity to address one element of this within the wider street. However, it is important that the quality of this structure is commensurate in quality with the listed building in order to respect its setting. As such, it is considered to be important to assess the overall implications of the design of the proposals:

Building Scale In terms of the general established scale of buildings within the area, Newland is bookended by large buildings and the application site lies toward the western end where the three tallest buildings are largely consistent in terms of their scale, with subtle variations in floorplates. The typology, architectural styles and form of the buildings are not consistent however and the grain of the development is therefore varied.

There are a number of factors such as the form and design of a building, together with its position within a site and the separation distances from other buildings that will affect how comfortably, or not, a taller building would sit in its particular site context. When one assesses the implications of the imposition of the proposed extension to the hotel building and the scale of the buildings either side, a height greater than the existing building or of continued commensurate height to the extent of Newland would almost certainly not have been appropriate. As such, officers consider that the proposals represent a suitable transition to the height of the buildings that address the Newland street frontage.

The Architectural Expression of the Proposed Building By assessing other contemporary architecture in the area it is clear that contemporary design can sit well within the conservation area and in most cases these are found to be well-designed modern additions to the conservation area, incorporating proportions, form and scale that are suitable to the contexts that they occupy. In terms of the proposed development, given the complex interaction with its context, it is necessary to consider the architectural expression of each elevation:- North Elevation The north elevation, which would be the most visible element of the building, having a frontage with Newland, incorporates an angular facade that oversails the ground floor across the first and second floors. At it’s furthest from the pavement, this is positioned in line with the front facade of the listed building to the east (Nos. 74-88 Newland). However, the angled frontage means that the western side of the facade aligns more closely with the ridge of No. 94-96 Newland, which sits to the back edge of the pavement. Meanwhile, the ground floor beneath the oversail is positioned parallel with the street. Beyond the second floor, each level of the building tiers back above in a cascading form. This is most pronounced above the third floor where a large terrace serves the function room. The footprint of the building is also staggered from the frontage due to the presence of No.94-96 Newland and its curtilage. As such, the stair tower is recessed back of the frontage to the rear of that property and would be visible from the frontage from glimpses between the existing buildings, including Viking House. The elevation is broken down into a number of component parts and the scale is cleverly disguised by the composition of the façade, including the recessed nature of the floors as they rise and the materials palette is carefully utilised to subtly provide a transition between solid and voids, which are also balanced comfortably across the elevation. Moreover, the materials are of a scale that would assist in maximising the potential for contrast in the texture and colour of the façade, which would be at ease with the simple form and detailing of the windows serving internal spaces, i.e. the use of a contrasting material for the angled window embrasures adds interest to the simple geometry of the façade, particularly where buff brick is utilised.

Officers appreciate that the design of the stair tower may be somewhat imposing and, as a functional element of the building, this often difficult to avoid. However, officers consider that the facade of the stair tower has been articulated in a manner that would add some interest to this part of the building, i.e. the contrast between the semi-translucent reglit panels and the vertical black cladding is somewhat reminiscent of the materials palette utilised in the construction of The Terrace on Grantham Street.

Examples of Development: The Terrace on Grantham Street and rear of the Widow Cullen’s Well Public House

Given the interaction with the street, the design of the ground floor frontage is perhaps most critical and in this instance, following discussions with the Applicant's design team, the elevation incorporates best practice from elsewhere in the city where successful interactions have been made in similar circumstances. Moreover, the rear of the Widow Cullen's Well in Uphill Lincoln utilises strong definition through high quality materials (stone) to animate this rear part of the building. Whilst this is not a common material in the area, stone is appropriate for the design ethos of the building, especially as the ground floor is recessed beneath the upper storeys so the visual impact will be understated. Similarly, the relationship to the listed building is certainly of more importance and therefore the articulation of the entire elevation is important. As Members will appreciate, modern design can often be momentary, i.e. not always appreciated in the long term but officers consider that the simple form of the elevations proposed will assist the building in its assimilation and acceptance alongside the terrace. As such, officers would advise Members that the building wold be a positive addition to

the conservation area and the setting of the listed building, this would be for the reasons outlined so eloquently by the Council's Principal Conservation Officer:-

“The proposed design has responded positively to pre application discussion. Prompted by the listed terrace, the design of the new building references Palladian influences including a piano nobile arrangement, an interpretation of rusticated stonework at ground floor and regular and vertically emphasised windows. The overall effect responds to the scale of the neighbouring buildings and is respectful and recessive, allowing the new elevation to provide a subtle frame for 78-88 Newland as the prominent building.”

East and West Elevations The east elevation is the next most visible elevation but this is primarily from more distant positions along Newland and from the walkway alongside the Brayford Quays development. The former is illustrated below:

View west along Newland, the existing hotel to the centre of the photograph This view along Newland illustrates how the existing building has assimilated into the context and helps to signpost the scale and massing of the proposed extension. The use of materials and the modulation of the elevation mark the progression of the architectural form and expressionism of the hotel building whilst also differentiating between the existing and proposed elements of the building. Moreover, to copy the architecture of the existing building could have been dishonest, as well as draw undue attention to the scale and mass of the resultant building.

There will only be glimpse views of the west elevation between the existing buildings but, as with the east elevation, it will be broken down in scale and views are dominated by the presence of the existing hotel and backdrop / foreground of Viking House.

Glimpse view across Carholme Road between Viking House and offices to the corner of Newland

Glimpse view between No. 94-96 Newland and Viking House

Like with the comments made by HE in relation to the frontage, upon investigation of the context of the site, although the 3rd floor (4th storey) could be set further back from the street, its position would not serve to undermine the impact of the enclosure provided along Newland by the listed terrace building. Notwithstanding this, as can be seen from the wider presentation to Members and the images below, the scale of elements above has been reduced to address concerns that officers shared with HE regarding the overall scale of the building. Officers consider that the result is a much more pleasant cascade to the building.

Wider Impacts Upon the Setting of the Hillside Officers appreciate that certain views of the Cathedral, Castle and hillside have been eroded in recent years by the construction of large buildings on Brayford Wharf North, including the existing hotel but surviving views make an important contribution to the setting of these historic buildings, including recently created views from Brayford Way. In terms of the impact of the proposals, officers agree with Historic England that due to the scale and orientation of existing buildings and that of the proposed extension the building is adjudged to not have an adverse impact upon the setting of the city skyline (uphill Lincoln). Moreover, officers consider that the proposed development would assimilate comfortably into the surrounding townscape when viewed from within and outside of the city. Consequently, officers are satisfied that the proposals would be compliant with Policy 55 of the Local Plan (“Long” Views Into and Out of the City), as well as the framework. This is illustrated by the following photograph taken from Brayford Way and the images over the page provided by the applicant that are of the proposals inserted into a 3D model of the city.

Photographic and 3D Sketch-Up Modelling of view northeast from Brayford Way of the existing hotel and context of Mill House and Viking House beyond

3D Sketch-Up Model of proposals (view west across Brayford Pool)

3D Sketch-Up Model of proposals (view south from Motherby Hill)

3D Sketch-Up Model of proposals (view south from Roof of City Hall)

iv) Summary The cascade of building from the existing hotel towards Newland is considered to be a successful architectural tool to address the key elevations facing north and east and it is considered that the quality of these elevations of the building and the overall scale have taken proper account of the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the adjacent grade II listed terrace. Moreover, officers agree with the Principal Conservation Officer’s interpretation of the key relationships which are described as follows:

"A cascading massing effectively marries across the depth of the plot as the overall building essentially has to address two elevations within disparate built context which characterise high density and scale the Brayford Pool and the smaller scale and finer grain of the Newland. The step back of the upper elements has sufficient depth to avoid undue dominance over the properties on Newland, and will be read in association with the established scale of the Brayford context"

It cannot be ignored that the associated enhancement of Newland could promote the viability of a high quality use and restoration scheme for 78-88 Newland, and provide confidence for the regeneration of other buildings and sites elsewhere in the conservation area, as an important gateway into the city. In light of this and the overall assessment undertaken of the proposals, it is considered that the proposals would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and the significance of the listed building. Therefore, the proposals are in accordance with the duty contained within sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990, as well as the guidance contained within the Framework, particularly paragraphs 132 and 137. 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). The requirements of Policy 34 are also expanded upon in Policy 18(8) and 18(9) which relate to development more specifically located within Mixed-Use Areas. It is the belief of officers that these policies 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) Assessment of the Implications of the Proposals The owners / occupants of these properties have raised concerns regarding the implications of the proposals upon his property with respect to the increased height of the development, resultant overshadowing / loss of light and overlooking from windows. In terms of the former a BRE Assessment has been requested. Furthermore, concern has also been raised regarding the potential noise and disturbance that the extended hotel could create when open and disruption during development, particularly from the third floor upwards and especially the terraces. In terms of the BRE testing, the application is supported by an ‘overshadow and overlooking analysis’ document which refers to the potential impact of the proposals upon the properties to the northeast and northwest of the site, i.e. Nos. 78-88 and 94-96 Newland. Officers have considered the implications of the development upon these and other amenities and recommend accordingly:- i) Noise from the Proposed Development The application is not supported by an assessment of noise and the location and type of plant and machinery is not yet known and the existing hotel building includes balconies to the northern façade and these are open to suites situated on the first, second and third floors, as well as conference and function facilities on the fourth and fifth floors. As a result, a certain level of noise would be expected occasionally from the building. The proposals are for larger roof terraces on the fourth and fifth floors but these would be above the adjacent buildings and closer to the busy Newland street frontage. As such, it is considered that the impact of noise from the development would not be of sufficient detriment to warrant the refusal of the application. Moreover, it is considered that planning conditions could be included to address outstanding mitigation required for noise outbreak from the potential entertainment within the building, as well as plant and machinery. As such, officers recommend that there would not appear to be any grounds to object to the application upon this basis as these conditions would make these elements of the development acceptable. Similarly, officers consider that it would be necessary to control the hours of working of construction and associated deliveries, as well as the details of external lighting to avoid harmful impacts upon the occupants of adjacent properties. ii) Potential for Overshadowing or Loss of Light The information in the overshadowing analysis document provided as part of the application considers the impact of the development upon the neighbouring properties situated to the east (78-88 Newland) and west (94-96 Newland) of the site and it is clear that there would not be an impact upon either property in December. However, in March the property to the west would lose the sunlight that the occupants may be able to appreciate to the rear of the building around the hours of 12-2pm; and higher floors of the terrace to the east could lose some light from 2pm onwards when such light may have previously been available.

Meanwhile, in June, 94-96 Newland benefits from sunlight until around 3pm to one degree or another but would lose sunlight to the part of its garden that is lit in the early part of the morning and all by 12pm. In terms of the terraced building there is currently overshadowing of the rear extent of the car park to the building, which stretches further east throughout the day. However, with the proposed development this would extend closer to the rear of the building, i.e. the rear amenity space would be cast in shade and possibly some of the rear façade of the building. Whilst the dense urban context within which the area is situated would mean that one would not necessarily expect the same degree of protection of amenity in this context as in a suburban context it is clear that there would be a considerable change in circumstances for certain parts of the day during the early months of the year and to a greater degree in June. Summary The shorter windows of time in which harm would be caused in March would not be ideal but given the current arrangements officers consider that the harm that would be caused to the amenities of the occupants of the terrace of properties would not be sufficiently harmful to consider this element in the planning balance of the proposals, i.e. it would not warrant the refusal of the application. Notwithstanding this, officers would advise Members that there would be some harm caused to the amenities that the occupants of those properties would expect to enjoy later in the year as shown with the June sun path analysis. As such, it would be necessary for officers to attribute weight to this harm in the planning balance of the application and then recommend to Members whether this would be sufficient in its own right or with other matters to warrant the refusal of the application. However, there may be other considerations that could outweigh this harm. This will be addressed later in this report. iii) Overlooking and Loss of Privacy Impact upon Nos. 78-88 Newland The information in the overlooking analysis document provided as part of the application considers the impact of the development upon this terrace of properties to the east of the site. The commentary with that analysis outlines that the angles of views from the hotel rooms would be oblique and any loss of privacy would be narrow strips through the windows. Given the commercial context within which the terrace is located, it is considered that it would be unreasonable to impose stringent restriction upon development to safeguard amenity. Notwithstanding this, given the position of windows at just less than 90⁰ , there would be some loss of privacy to rooms within the terrace. However, it is considered that upon balance this loss of privacy would not be so harmful to warrant refusal of the application upon this basis. In a similar vein, the proposals would provide opportunities for overlooking of the rear amenity area of the terraced property but this is not likely to be any worse than the current arrangements. Moreover, at present, there is a balcony on each floor of the northern façade of the hotel which offers opportunities to directly look into windows and the rear amenity areas, as illustrated below.

Figure 1: Applicant’s photo from fifth floor balcony toward the adjacent terrace The balconies would be removed by virtue of the extension and replaced by new roof terraces that would be sat much more obliquely to the building. Accordingly, these would not promote the same type of impact, i.e. the views would be more distant to the east. Furthermore, the windows would overlook the rear amenity area in much the same way the existing terraces currently do, as such it is considered that the impact would not be unacceptably harmful, particularly as these areas are open to a semi-public car parking area and the property is located in a more dense urban context where a degree of overlooking is expected. Impact upon Nos. 94-96 Newland As there are no windows located in the western or northern elevations of the building immediately adjacent to this property but the roof terraces at the fourth and fifth floor would promote a degree of overlooking down to the rear amenity area of the property. Although the impact would be more acute than that already experienced by overlooking from the balconies to the rear of the hotel, it is considered that the impact is likely to be infrequent due to the roof terraces being primarily used for functions and conferences. Notwithstanding this, the impact would almost certainly be no different to that experienced from views available from Viking House to the west and, as with the terrace to the east, in such a dense commercial context there is an expectation that one would experience a greater degree of overlooking than in a suburban context where uses are more favourably spaced. Impact upon Viking House It is clear that there would be fifteen windows in the west elevation facing toward Viking House. The new building would be approximately three and a half metres from the windows in Viking House. The relationship is a close one but the windows are to offices as opposed to windows to habitable residential accommodation. As

such, upon balance the impact of the proximity of the windows in the building is considered to be acceptable.

Figure 2: Extract from the Applicant’s

Overshadow and Overlooking Analysis

iv) Scale and Massing Impact upon Viking House It is clear that the building would be close to east elevation of Viking House and the flank wall of the new building would be clad for the most part in the same red brick that is already in situ along this boundary and the remainder of the façade would be clad in vertical panels. The relationship is a close one but would be similar to the existing arrangements elsewhere in that building and one would not expect the same degree of protection of amenity in a commercial building. As such, upon balance the impact of the scale of the building upon outlook is therefore considered to be acceptable. Impact upon Nos. 78-88 Newland The impacts of the proposed building upon the listed terrace are by virtue of the proximity of the building to the eastern boundary of the site. Due to its orientation and continuation of the footprint from the south, the scale of the extended building could be perceived more greatly. As alluded to above, one would expect development to be of a greater density and scale in such an urban context and in a wholly residential context the implications of a relationship of this nature could be deemed to be overbearing upon amenity space. However, in this instance, the rear of the terrace is a large car parking area. As such, the perception or impact of the scale of the building cannot be attributed the same degree of weight. Similarly, in such a dense urban context the impact of scale upon the outlook of the properties within the terrace cannot be attributed the same degree of weight. Consequently, whilst there could be some harm caused to the outlook of the occupants of the terrace, it is considered that the harm that would be caused to the amenities of the occupants of the terrace of properties would not be sufficiently harmful to consider this element in the planning balance of the proposals, i.e. it would not warrant the refusal of the application. Impact upon Nos. 94-96 Newland The property immediately to the north of the site incorporates an amenity area at its rear which serves the residential accommodation above the ground floor restaurant. This is enclosed by Viking House and the building currently occupying Nos. 90-92. The former is a five storey office block that is around 3.0metres to the west and the latter is primarily three storeys high but incorporates a stair tower to the rear. Although one would expect development to be of a greater density and scale in such an urban context, there is no doubt that the proposed building would be significantly taller and closer than the in situ buildings. The applicant has reduced the scale of the stair tower to the proposed extension by omitting the top floor of building and amended the material palette in order to reduce the perceived scale of the building. In terms of the latter, the ground and first floors would be a buff brick and the façade is split in half above first floor utilising semi-translucent and solid cladding systems.

The occupants of the property will undoubtedly still be harmed by the overbearing nature of the building due to the proximity and scale of the building to the east and south of the property and amenity space. This impact is illustrated below with an existing photographic view across the rear of No. 94-96 Newland, followed by the proposals superimposed in the same view:

It would be necessary for officers to attribute weight to this harm in the planning balance of the application and therefore recommend to Members whether this would be sufficient in its own right or with other matters to warrant the refusal of the application. Conversely, there may be other considerations that could outweigh this harm. This will be addressed later in this report. v) Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour Consultation responses have been received as part of the application from Lincolnshire Police whom offer pertinent advice in relation to the operational elements of the proposed building including designing-in crime reduction measures within the site and building. It is considered that much of which is suggested can be dealt with through other planning conditions, including effective site lighting but the applicant should be made aware of these recommendations if Members are minded to grant permission for the application. 3) Air Quality a) Relevant Planning Policy Paragraph 109 of the NPPF introduces the section in relation to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment. Given that the site is located adjacent within the Air Quality Management Areas (declared by the Council due to the likely exceedence of the national air quality objectives for nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter), this section of the NPPF should be given great weight. It states that “the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by…preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put

at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability”. Paragraph 120 sets the scene and refers to development being “appropriate for its location”. It goes on to say that “the effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account.” Paragraph 124 refers in more detail to the implications of the location of development within an Air Quality Management Area and requires that “planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan”. b) Assessment of the Implications of the Proposals The application site is located within the Air Quality Management Areas declared by the Council due to the likely exceedence of the national air quality objectives for nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter. The City of Lincoln Council Air Quality Action Plan was adopted in 2006 and outlined options for improving air quality. This included links through Land Use Planning to “ensure that developments do not contribute to a deterioration in air quality”. This was to be achieved through a “Reduction in traffic use, encouragement of more sustainable transport modes. Alignment with other Council policies. General environmental improvements.” Whilst there has been no specific supplementary planning guidance produced in relation to air quality, the quality of air throughout the city has been monitored, and the clear goal of the action plan is to improve air quality. Moreover, an Air Quality Progress Reports have been produced on an annual basis. The applicants have been encouraged by the Council's Environmental Health Officers to provide vehicle charging points for guests with electric vehicles. Given the transient nature of guests and the location of the development in a central location this seems entirely reasonable and proportionate to the scale of development. Officers would advise Members that this matter can be addressed by the planning condition referred to in the response received from colleagues. 4) Sustainable Access, Highway Safety and Traffic Capacity a) Relevant Planning Policy A number of policies are relevant to the access, parking and highway design of proposals. The Framework through 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". Meanwhile, in terms of the policies contained within the City of Lincoln Local Plan 1998, Policy 1 refers to the location of developments that could attract attracting large numbers of people; Policy 34 refers to vehicle and cycle parking and making

satisfactory provision for access by means other than the car; and Policy 18(9) outlines that development must not result in levels of traffic or on-street parking which would cause road safety problems. Furthermore, Policy 8B (2) of the Local Plan (Parking and Servicing Provision in Central Lincoln) outlines the requirements for parking within developments in the area. In addition, the presence within the Brayford and Glory Hole Revival Area (Policy 19F) would require “that servicing and parking provision allows for an attractive, safe and pedestrian-dominated environment; on site car parking space is only provided in instances where the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that it is essential for the satisfactory operation of businesses which will occupy premises within these sites…and…the number of spaces is kept to a minimum, the provision of such spaces does not conflict with the aim of creating and maintaining an attractive, safe, pedestrian-dominated environment, and does not threaten the aim of creating a revitalised “inner core”; development proposals take into account the requirement to provide new and/or enhance existing pedestrian routes through the area, and the layout reflects the historic north-south grain of the area”. b) Assessment of the Implications of the Proposals It is important to consider the implications of the proposals upon the highway network from the perspective of access, safety and traffic capacity and the application is supported by information which refers to these matters, particularly as the Lincoln Civic Trust and residents object due to access, traffic increase and the free flow of traffic. Moreover, the Civic Trust has reiterated concerns that they had with the original scheme with regard to the access to the site and reorienting this so vehicles enter at Newland. Officers are sure that some Members recall the history to the existing hotel but it is important to note that the Highway Authority and the Council were very keen to ensure that access was eventually achieved in the manner that is proposed as part of the application. Indeed a Section 106 agreement was signed by the applicants to achieve this. Officers would therefore not support the request of the Trust upon this basis and would have grave concerns regarding vehicles waiting to turn right from Newland into such an access, as this would restrict the free flow of traffic through the city and could lead to highway safety concerns. Vehicular ingress will therefore continue to be from Brayford Wharf North with egress formed onto Newland from the extension proposed to the car park. Moreover, there would be a net increase of thirty-two spaces in the extension and existing building, i.e. 56 general spaces and 2 spaces for persons with disabilities. This equates to around one space for each third bed space within the hotel (c.160 bedrooms). Whilst the Highway Authority has not returned their comments regarding the application, based upon the number of existing spaces provided for the rooms within the current hotel the level of provision of parking would be reasonable for the proposals. Notwithstanding this, the site would be accessible by foot and cycle and the building can also be reached conveniently by public transport as it is only a short distance from the bus and railway stations. The arrangements would also provide an improvement to the access to Newland and any conflict with pedestrian flows.

However, officers would recommend that if Members were minded to grant planning permission then it would be pertinent to ensure that planning conditions are imposed to control the detailed design of the new access being formed with the highway, that the new route created to Newland is for the purposes of egress only and that parking is available at all times the extended hotel is in operation. 5) Implications of the Proposals upon Archaeology a) Relevant Planning Policy Paragraph 128 of the Framework states that “in determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.” Paragraph 141 of the Framework states that LPAs should ‘require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible.’ b) Assessment of the Implications of the Proposals Historic England has referred to the fact that the application has not been accompanied by an assessment of the archaeological significance of the site or potential impacts of ground works, associated with the development, upon any archaeological remains that may be preserved on the site. Notwithstanding this, the application has been the subject of in-depth discussion with the City Archaeologist and the applicant’s archaeologist in order to ensure that any implications upon archaeology are satisfactorily addressed in the future. Moreover, the City Archaeologist has confirmed the following:-

“the proposed development has a very high likelihood of impacting upon human remains within the known area of the Newland Roman Cemetery. This is a large area of funerary remains to the west of the Roman lower city, including both cremation and inhumation burials, that extends at least as far as Newland Street West.”

In addition, previous evaluation undertaken in advance of the erection of the present Hilton building indicated the potential for medieval remains to be present on the site; and other evidence available to the Council suggests that it is possible there could be a road running between Guildhall St. and Carholme Road, which would be uncovered on this site.

In terms of the human burials, excavation work undertaken at No. 64 Newland revealed 28 individual burials of Roman date in a concentrated area, which demonstrates that large concentrations of well-preserved burials are to be expected in this area. A similar excavation undertaken before the construction of the existing hotel building revealed an indeterminate number of roman burials such as the image below and some good examples of grave goods:

Example of burials discovered at the site of the existing hotel

Upon the basis of what is known, in this particular instance, it was not necessary to require the applicant to undertake any pre-determination evaluation. As such, the City Archaeologist has recommended the following:-

“Given the size of the proposed development and the likely impacts of a piling strategy upon such remains, it is not considered that any strategy for preservation in-situ would be successful. In particular the indirect impacts of compression and the direct impacts of piling would cause sufficient damage to the remains as to render them incapable of future examination. Furthermore, it is unlikely that once a piled foundation system has been applied there will be sufficient space available to undertake investigations at any future point.”

Consequently, officers are satisfied that the above requirements for a full excavation of any and all remains within the footprint of the building can be accommodated by planning condition(s) and that the proposals would therefore accord with the requirements of the Framework. Officers therefore advise Members that archaeology would be a constraint that could be satisfactorily resolved. 6) Other Matters a) Flood Risk and Surface and Foul Water Disposal

i) Relevant Planning Policy The Framework sets out a strategy for dealing with flood risk in paragraphs 93-108 inclusive, which involves the assessment of site specific risks with proposals aiming to place the most vulnerable development in areas of lowest risk and ensuring appropriate flood resilience and resistance. Furthermore, Policy 40 of the Local Plan refers to the disposal of foul water and requires that satisfactory means of treating and disposing of any foul water are or will be available in time to serve development (without detriment to existing users). ii) Assessment of the Implications of the Proposals In this instance the development within the application site is located within Flood Zone 1 so the Sequential and Exception Tests required by the Framework need not apply. Notwithstanding this, the new egress to the site for evacuation purposes would be to Newland which is significantly above the predicted flood level from the Brayford Pool and Foss Dyke. However, the risk associated with surface water run-off from the development still need to be considered. The application form suggests that surface water would be disposed of to the main sewer. The lack of specific information relating to the proposals for surface water disposal is criticised by the Internal Drainage Board but given that the site is already occupied by a building and hard surfaced for the remainder it would be difficult to argue that the proposals would be in conflict with the Framework with respect to drainage.

Moreover, given the constraints within the site (contamination and archaeology), it is unlikely that below ground storage would be available so disposal of water in the manner suggested would appear to be reasonable. However, it would be reasonable to suggest that the final details of drainage and/or the rate of run-off from the site into the sewer should be agreed by planning condition. Subject to this information being provided officers consider there should not be increased risk of flooding elsewhere resulting from the development. As such, officers would advise that the proposals would be in accordance with the requirements of the Framework. Furthermore, in this instance, the application suggests that foul water will be disposed of via the main sewer, Anglian Water have the responsibility for this. There would not be any evidence to suggest that it would not be possible for current infrastructure to accept foul water from the site. In the context of the requirements of the Framework and what is known regarding the site, it is considered that there would not be conflict with the Framework or Local Plan. b) Land Contamination i) Relevant Planning Policy Paragraph 109 of the NPPF introduces on contamination and suggests that “the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by [amongst other things] preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability”. Paragraph 120 expands upon this and suggests that “to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.” In addition Paragraph 121 states that planning decisions “should also ensure that:

the site is suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions and land instability, including from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, pollution arising from previous uses and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation or impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation;

after remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and

adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented.”

ii) Assessment of the Implications of the Proposals The application is not supported by any information with respect to land contamination but has been assessed by the Council’s Scientific Officer and it is considered that this matter can be dealt with by planning conditions in an acceptable manner, i.e. the assessment of risk, remediation and unexpected contamination. This is considered to be justified due to the past uses within the site in accordance with the requirements of Paragraphs 109, 120, 121 and 204 of the Framework. c) Structural Integrity The owners / occupiers of Nos. 84-88 and 94-96 Newland have raised concerns that the proposals would cause damage to the fabric of their buildings, particularly during demolition and construction. Officers have considered this matter and consider that the proximity of the terrace to the site would ensure that this matter is a material consideration that would affect its long term importance as a heritage asset. Consequently, officers believe it would be both reasonable and relevant to request that the application provides details of the demolition and construction methodology for the development, particularly in relation to foundation design. 7) The Planning Balance Members will observe from the body of this report that the principle of the development of a hotel use within the site is acceptable. As such, the extension to the existing hotel would also be acceptable subject to the assessment of the planning balance of the other issues that are relevant to the consideration of this application. These are referred to in full above but it is important to note that there are a number of competing issues relevant to the application but that some issues do not carry the same weight as a potential constraint or opportunity. As such, it would be necessary to eliminate those issues that do not sufficiently constrain the development to warrant that it should not be granted planning permission:-

Air Quality - a planning condition can be utilised to assist in the reduction of air borne pollutants associated with personal vehicular travel of guests of the hotel that, i.e. the introduction of electric vehicle charging points within the development to encourage travel by such means;

Highways - In the absence of any concern by the Highway Authority regarding the application, the long term goal to provide vehicular movement from Brayford Wharf North through the car park to Newland would be achieved. Furthermore, the level of parking would be reasonable to serve the development. In the context of Paragraph 32 of the Framework, officers therefore recommend that there does not appear to be evidence to suggest that the residual cumulative impacts of the development would be severe;

Archaeology - with suitable planning conditions the impact of the development of the site would not be harmful to archaeology preserved on the site;

Flood Risk / Drainage - although details of site drainage are not clear, these can be addressed by condition once contamination / archaeology have been addressed. Notwithstanding this, the risk to guests from flooding is somewhat reduced in terms of evacuation as a clear route of egress would not be available to Newland through the building; and

Contamination - In the absence of information regarding the contamination of the site, as with sites elsewhere, it is acceptable to use a planning condition to assess and mitigate risk.

Consequently, Members are advised that these matters would not be sufficient individually or collectively to outweigh the presumption in favour of sustainable development or tip the planning balance against the application. The remaining issues are amenity and impacts upon heritage assets which are now considered in more detail. The Planning Balance of the Implications upon Amenity and Heritage Assets Although the presumption in favour of sustainable development need not necessarily apply in relation to development affecting heritage assets, the thrust of the Framework is to approve sustainable development so significant weight should be given to this matter. However, officers must consider the weight that should be attributed to:

the harm that could be caused to the amenities that the occupiers of adjacent properties would expect to enjoy; and

the positive enhancement brought about to the setting of the listed building and the wider West Parade and Brayford conservation area.

It is clear from the main body of the report that the proposed building could not be accommodated within the site without causing some harm to the properties either side. Moreover, the scale of the building results in overshadowing and loss of light to both properties; and would be somewhat overbearing to one. Equally, it is also clear that it would not be reasonable to preserve the site in aspic or unnecessary restrict development; both matters are important in the context of sustainable development. In this instance officers would advise Members that the planning balance would tip in favour of the proposals as greater weight should be afforded to the long term implications of the enhancement that would be brought to the conservation area and setting of the listed building, as well as the potential stimulus that the proposals could be for further wider enhancement of the historic townscape. This is particularly important given that Newland and the Brayford area are an important gateway to the city centre. As such, although officers sympathise with the owners and occupiers of the properties either side of the site, the harm that could be caused to the amenities that they would expect to enjoy would not be sufficient to outweigh the presumption in favour of sustainable development or tip the planning balance against the application. Conclusions Although the presumption in favour of sustainable development need not necessarily apply in terms of proposals where heritage assets are affected, taking account of all the matters referred to in this officer report and subject to the planning conditions listed later, officers consider that the planning balance would fall in favour of the application. As such, officers would therefore advise Members that there would not be sufficient grounds to refuse the application upon any of the issues referred to in

this report and that the overall harm that could be caused to amenity would be outweighed by the benefits of the proposals. Financial Implications None. Legal Implications None. Application Negotiated Either at Pre-Application or During Process of Application Yes – extensive application discussions in order resolve concerns identified by various parties. Equality Implications None. Application Determined Within Target Date Yes – agreement reached to extend the application until beyond the Planning Committee Meeting. Recommendation Officers recommend that planning permission be granted subject to planning conditions. Conditions In this instance the planning conditions recommended for the application would cover the following:-

The timeframe of permission (3 years);

Approved Plans;

Archaeology;

Land Contamination;

Noise Assessment;

Details of external plant and control of noise thereafter;

Construction Management Plan;

Demolition / Construction Methodology;

Final Drainage Strategy (foul and surface water disposal);

Lighting Strategy;

Details of the materials Palette for the external treatment of the building, including brick sample panels including bonding and mortar mix, sample of stone block and mortar finish, sample of timber for door and sliding gate

including surface treatment/finish and colour of timber door and sliding gate, details of standing seam cladding and semi-translucent reglit cladding;

Details of hard landscaping;

Highways (design of new access onto Newland, maintenance of new access through to Newland in perpetuity and parking available at all times hotel in use);

Electric Vehicle Charging Points;

Details of waste storage;

Final design of proposed wall and railings to Newland; and

Removal of permitted development rights for future fences. Report by: Planning Manager

Responses Received Lincoln Civic Trust Second Response (21/12/2015) The Civic Trust's comments on the above Planning Application are as follows: OBJECTION: It is noted that the re-design has removed the tall glazed tower from the plan and has made the replacement more in keeping with the street scene. However from our last submission on this application, we were concerned about Newland elevation not being in keeping with the street scene. In particular we are concerned that the large windows facing onto Newland lack any character and certainly do not match any other windows on the street. We would also re-iterate our comments concerning the restricted exit and poor visibility for vehicles leaving the site. Initial Response (16/10/2015) OBJECTION. We feel that

1. the design of the Newland elevation is not in keeping with the buildings on either side and there would be an opportunity to make a real statement about the building and the street scene.

2. The “stepped” approach to the buildings on the Newland frontage is to be commended but the large glazed tower encompassing it would appear an escape stairway it totally out of place. It should firstly be further away from the road and made of materials that would not highlight its presence.

3. It should considered making the traffic to the site flow in the opposite direction. That is entering the site from Newland and leaving via Brayford Wharf East. The reasons we feel is that the standing traffic on Newland is more likely to allow traffic to enter the site than to exit and the vision for vehicles exiting the site via Newland is very restrictive.

Historic England

Second Response (08/12/2015) Whilst we welcome the reduction of the height of the stair tower our advice in regards to the other aspects of the proposal remain as set out in our letter of 26 October 2015. Yours sincerely David Walsh Initial Response (26/10/2015) Historic England Advice Significance The proposed scheme lies within the West Parade and Brayford conservation area which was designated in 1983 by the City of Lincoln Council as an area of special architectural or historic interest the character and appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. Newland forms an important part of the character and appearance of the conservation area, as do the historic connection between the Brayford Pool and Newland and the surviving buildings and spaces which illustrate the earlier industrial activity to the north of the waterside and the ‘polite’ architecture of the higher status buildings which fronted onto Newland itself. Newland typically had two or three storey houses on its south side built in the 18th and 19th centuries which were set at the back of the pavement or with shallow forecourts. A number of buildings which formed part of the high status suburb in this period survive, including 78-88 Newland (early 19th century and listed Grade II) and 64 Newland (late 18th

century and altered in the 19th century, and listed Grade II). Later development on the north side includes the Grade II listed County Council Offices (incorporating an 18th century house). The surviving active frontages and sense of enclosure where buildings front onto the street add strongly to Newland’s character and the contribution its character makes to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the nearby listed buildings. The visual connection of the Brayford Pool with Lincoln Cathedral, Lincoln Castle and the historic hillside on the north escarpment has been represented in illustrations and paintings through the 18th and 19th centuries. Whilst views of the Cathedral, Castle and hillside have been eroded in recent years by the construction of large buildings on Brayford Wharf North, including the existing Doubletree Hotel, surviving views make an important contribution to the setting of these historic buildings, including recently created views from Brayford Way. Impact of the proposed scheme The proposed scheme is to demolish the former NHS Healthcare Services building on Newland and replace it with an extension to the rear of the Doubletree Hilton of up to 6 storeys (plus mezzanine), and a taller stair tower. We have no objection in principle to the demolition of the former NHS building which is of limited significance. However, the former building does maintain a strong

building line parallel to the road; it has an active elevation that is clearly a frontage; and it creates an appropriate level of enclosure. We advise that the proposed north elevation facing onto Newland would have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the nearby listed buildings as it fails to follow a traditional building line parallel to the road and the vehicle exit and blank wall dominate, creating a character that is not a frontage. We recommend that the alignment of the north elevation is revised and the impact of the vehicle exit/blank walling is reduced to create a more active frontage with appropriate scale and architectural detailing to enliven the façade. We also recommend that the 4 storey element to the rear of the northernmost part of the extension is set back further to retain the sense of enclosure provided along Newland by the 3 storey buildings. We consider that the impact of the 6 storey section and stair tower is likely to dominate this section of Newland and 78-88 Newland, despite being set back, and we advise that its scale is reconsidered. It would appear from the information provided that the extension as a whole would have a limited impact on longer views of the Cathedral, Castle and the historic hillside on the north escarpment as it would be largely shielded by the existing hotel and Viking House immediately to the west. We advise that the impact of the proposal on views in general would need to be carefully considered given their importance to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the Cathedral, Castle and historic hillside. Legislation, policy and guidance As the site of the proposed scheme is within a conservation area, the statutory requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area (s.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990) must be taken into account by your authority in determining this application. The statutory requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses (section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990) must be taken into account by your authority when making any decision on a planning application concerning the proposed scheme. Our advice reflects legislation and the government’s policy and guidance provided in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Practice Guidance, and good practice advice notes produced by Historic England on behalf of the Historic Environment Forum including Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment and The Setting of Heritage Assets.

Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines the setting of a heritage asset as 'the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced (Annex 2). Detailed guidance on assessing the impact of development on the setting of a heritage asset is set out within The Setting of Heritage Assets, including paragraphs 4-6, 9, 18-21 and 22-25.

The NPPF states that in any application for planning permission, your authority should aim to achieve the objective of sustainable development which means guiding development towards a solution that achieves economic, social and environmental gains jointly and simultaneously (paragraph 8). An environmental gain in any planning application that affects the historic environment would be the continued conservation of heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations - a core planning principle (paragraph 17, NPPF). Local authorities should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource (paragraphs 126 and 132, NPPF and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 18a-003-20140306). Your authority should also take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets (paragraph 131, NPPF). The NPPF goes on to say that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to its conservation, (paragraph 132). Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Whilst some are given equal importance, no other planning concern is given a greater sense of importance in the NPPF. Paragraph 138 of the NPPF states that ‘loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site should be treated either as substantial harm under paragraph 133 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 134, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area ….. as a whole’. The planning application provides no assessment of the archaeological significance or potential impacts of ground works associated with the proposed development on any archaeological remains that may be preserved on the site. The NPPF (paragraph 128) makes it clear that all planning applications should contain an adequate assessment of the significance of heritage assets, including any contribution made by their setting, in a level of detail proportionate to the assets’ importance and sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the NPPF states that the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted. Your authority must be satisfied that you have received sufficient information to enable you to determine the application in line with the above policy: therefore in the absence of any submitted information we recommend that you are guided by the specialist advice of your City Archaeologist in relation to these matters and in particular as to whether additional information should be submitted prior to your authority’s determination of this application. Any harm or loss to significance should also require clear and convincing justification (paragraph 132, NPPF). In accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF we advise that the harm caused to the significance of the designated heritage assets affected, as described above, should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Recommendation

We recommend that the proposed scheme is revised as described above and that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your expert conservation advice. Please contact me if we can be of further assistance. We would be grateful to receive a copy of the decision notice in due course. This will help us to monitor actions related to changes to historic places. Yours sincerely David Walsh Upper Witham, Witham First District & Witham Third District IDBs Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above application. The site is within the Board’s District. The FRA included in appears to be the one for the original application for the full site, dated 2007. It is reasonable however I would like to make the following observations.

It does not provide the information on how the site drained in 2007 and there is no reference to how the drainage for the current hotel was resolved.

There are no details of the proposed discharge arrangements and rates.

There are no details of the attenuation for the existing hotel or the proposed extension.

There are no details of any SUDS features.

All drainage routes through the Site should be maintained both during the works on Site and after completion of the works. Provisions should be made to ensure that upstream and downstream riparian owners and those areas that are presently served by any drainage routes passing through or adjacent to the Site are not adversely affected by the development. Drainage routes shall include all methods by which water may be transferred through the Site and shall include such systems as “ridge and furrow” and “overland flows”. The effect of raising Site levels on adjacent property must be carefully considered and measures taken to negate influences must be approved by the Local Planning Authority. Regards Guy Hird Engineering Services Officer Lincolnshire Police Thank you for your correspondence dated 25th November 2015 and the opportunity to comment on the proposed development. I have studied the online plans and would request that you consider the following points that if adhered to would help reduce the opportunity for crime and increase the safety and sustainability of the development on this site.

Lincolnshire Police has no formal objections to the planning application. Reception / Entrances This area should be well illuminated and welcoming with the reception staff able to with a clear view of the approaches to the entrance. I would recommend that the entrance to the reception is an ‘air lock’ system whereby two sets of doors are used; the first opening will allow a visitor through into a secure vestibule operated by way of controlled form of access with the capacity for entrance to be gained once the first door is secured. Such a considered system will reduce the opportunity for any ‘follow through’ access by any unwanted access and would provide safety, security and reassurance to staff and guests. The reception should provide suitable staffing or alternative measures or operating systems to allow for 24/7 supervision of security and access to the hotel. Perimeter A clearly defined and secure boundary using a fence, wall or other effective barrier (significant and dense tree line) is a prerequisite for a safe and secure site. A secure boundary will cause difficulties and frustrate the potential intruder and deter people who have no legitimate business on the hotel site. Where pathways or rights of way exist, the use of defensive planting and visible fencing can be used but not that inhibits natural or formal surveillance. Where fencing is to be used either internally (depending on location advice from CPDA) or as part of the external boundary this should be a minimum of 1.8 m (not security fencing) effective and to (quality and standard can be determined by local conditions and can be advised on by the CPDA) but not that creates a ‘fortress’ mentality. Fencing should not be positioned adjacent to convenient aids to climbing over the fence line, i.e. trees, lamp columns or buildings. Signage Effective use of directional and informative signage can do much to reduce the opportunity for any persons accessing the site and not knowing where they should be. Site maps and clear directions to the reception or security office will reduce any opportunity for unwarranted trespass on the site. Vehicle parking Vehicle parking should ideally conform to the standards set out by the police service’s ‘Park-mark’ criteria for safer parking, whilst not a requirement for Secure by Design status it is a good standard to achieve. Lighting Lighting should be co-ordinated with an effective CCTV system and any light fittings protected against vandalism. The overall lighting scheme should be well considered

and evenly distribute light avoiding dark shadows ,provide good colour rendition, and not cause glare or light pollution and effectively support formal and informal surveillance within the hotel. A good lighting system can be cost effective and ensure that there will be a witness to any intrusion. It should allow staff and guests to feel secure and safe. Importantly it should make intruders feel vulnerable and that there is an increased likelihood of being challenged. Internal Lighting It is advised the majority of internal lighting is linked to detection devices that turns lighting on and off as required based on movement activity. This type of system reduces energy consumption and will identify the presence and progress of intruders in the building when closed. Lighting should be designed to cover all external doors Landscaping Boundaries between public and what is private space should be clearly defined and open accessible spaces should not allow for any unintended purpose which may cause any form of anti-social behaviour or nuisance. I would recommend that these spaces are defined clearly by low level (carefully considered) planting of limited growth height and maintenance shrubbery (maximum growth height of 1m). External doors The Secured by Design requirement for all external door sets is PAS 24.2012 (doors of an enhanced security). CCTV System A comprehensive monitored CCTV should be included throughout the site with appropriate signage. Should it be considered appropriate a police response monitored system to with installation to EN 50131-1, (PD6662 Scheme for the implementation of European Standards), or BS 8418 for a detector activated CCTV system. Windows All windows must conform to improved security standard BS 7950:1997 All ground floor windows should be laminated safety glazing (BS EN 356 2000 rating P2A) (6.4mm minimum) in windows below 800mm (from floor level) or 1500mm if within 300mm of a doorframe. All windows should include easily lockable hardware unless a designated fire egress route.

Windows should have secure restraining devices (this is particularly to be recommended on the ground and first floor accommodation to deter and prevent unwanted access. Consideration to top down or bottom up hinges (subject to fire regulations). I would strongly recommend that this development incorporates the achievement of a full Secured by Design validation which would support and reflect the highest of standards in terms of the safety and security. 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 Force Crime Prevention Design Advisor Louise Pepperdine (Adie Pepperdine Ltd) on behalf of Zahid Ansari (owner of 94-96 Newland) We act for Zahid Ansari who owns and runs the restaurant situated at 94-96 Newland, Lincoln. This adjoins the property where the proposed development is to take place. Our client wishes to oppose to the above planning application on the following grounds:-

1. Due to the increased height of the proposed development, this would result in overshadowing and the windows from the development would overlook our client’s property causing a loss of privacy and a loss of right to light;

2. As the proposal is to extend the hotel, this would result in an increase of noise and disburbance. There is not adequate servicing along Newland for this proposed increase;

3. There is a drastic change in design and appearance which does not suit the

adjoining properties and character of the street. This gives an overbearing nature to the adjoining properties;

4. If the proposed development goes ahead, there will appear to be an increase

in density of the buildings and it will drastically alter the layout of the area and risks a precedent being set; for the remaining properties along Newland to increase in size and alter the public visual amenity to the city.

5. With the increase in volume of the size of the business, there will a simultanous increase in the traffic. This will affect the access to the property and the highway safety of the area; there will be a considerably higher number of vehicles trying to turn off and exit the property onto Newland causing disruption to the flow of traffic and potential hazards. In the design, access & heritage statement provided with the application, Newland street will provide a point of vehicular egress from the site;

6. There is a concern to the structure of the proposed development and the

impact this will have on the adjoining properties. As noted in the design, access & heritage statement the buildings either side of the proposed development require careful treatment;

7. The proposed development is of a vast size and would take considerable time

to complete; this disruption would cause a potential loss to our clients trade. Bridget Carroll and Major Richard Ramage (owners of 84/86/88 Newland and the 2 flats below) Second Response Further to my email dated 11 Nov 2015 I wish to object to the current plans in the strongest possible terms, whilst I believe that the proposed extension to the Doubletree Hilton extension is good for Lincoln, the size and character of the extension will interfere with our properties (84 - 88 Newland) on a number of fronts.

1. It is apparent that certain assumptions made during the architect's design process are false, in that the properties 84 - 88 Newland are commercial (Planning Document PLN344175 refers), in fact all properties are residential (up to 22 students living in the three properties) with a number of bedrooms (8) on the first and second floors at the rear of the property. At the back of 86 and 88 Newland there are small terraces which are communal outside sitting/garden areas.

2. All three properties will be affected by the proposed extension in terms of overshadowing, loss of light, loss of privacy. The 6 windows in the east facing elevation and the Function Room Terrace will allow hotel guests to overlook the 8 bedrooms and kitchens of the three properties.

3. Given the proximity of the proposed extension and my properties I would like a Building Research Establishment assessment to be carried out to determine if my Legal Right of Light is going to be restricted - I believe that the Authority is able to request that the developers carry out this assessment.

4. I cannot stress enough the possible impact that noise and light pollution will have on the tenants (students) living in 84 - 88 Newland. Lincoln has been rejuvenated by the University, part of which is having student living in the community, in good housing provided by decent landlords. The tenants living in Newland have turned what was a rundown area with empty properties into a dynamic, vibrant community and one that is her for the long term. Today's students spend a lot of time in their individual rooms studying, which is quite different from the way a family home is normally utilized.

5. I believe that the extension is over-bearing and out-of-scale and character compared with the other houses in the Newland Terrace and as it affects the setting of existing Listed Buildings it should complement them not overshadow/dwarf them. A higher standard of design is expected in areas that are designated Conservation Areas; this extension adds nothing to the Conservation Area nor the setting of the Listed Buildings which adjoin the proposed extension.

I believe that this application should be postponed until such time as proper consultant is carried out with the owners of the Newland Terrace and in particular the owners of 84-88 Newland to determine if a more sympathetic approach to the design of the extension could be found, especially given the false assumption made (see para 1 above). Initial Response We are the owners of 84/86/88 Newland and the 2 flats below, I spoke with you recently regarding the proposed Doubletree Hilton Hotel extension. Since speaking, I have had the opportunity to review the planning application which have thrown up a number of issues/concerns a. The design, access and heritage statement Page 19 (8) states that the "Adjoining the site to the east is a ground floor restaurant and the listed building to the west is in office use" - this is false as the properties 84-88 are residential and have been for the last 2/3 years, indeed a total of 22 people reside in the 3 properties. b. Noise from the Hotel especially the third/forth and fifth floor - outside terrace, conference and function rooms - will impact on the tenants. c. Light/Being overlooked - the height of the Hotel will shadow the rear of my properties. I have concerns over the height and closeness of the Hotel to my property where my tenants will be overlooked. d. The damage to 88 Newland that could be caused by the work. These are all Grade II listed Georgian properties dating from 1780 and will require special consideration. Please note that last year when the Hilton opened up the carpark into the old NHS property the vibrations caused cracking of the plaster throughout 88 Newland. e. The impact of noise/vibration/work patterns during the build phase that will effect my tenants. f. The possible de-valuing of my properties due to the closeness of the extension In principle I am pro business development in Lincoln and welcome this planning application, however, it would appear that the architects failed to research the fact that the properties adjoining the proposed extension to the west are in fact residential and that there will be a major impact on both my tenants and my business, if I am not able to let the rooms because of the closeness of the hotel extension.

Plans – Site Location

Existing and Proposed Ground Floor Plans (Proposed Block Plan)

Existing and Proposed Mezzanine Floor Layout

Existing and Proposed First Floor Layout

Existing and Proposed Second Floor Layout

Existing and Proposed Third Floor Layout

Existing and Proposed Fourth Floor Layout

Existing and Proposed Fifth Floor Layout

Existing and Proposed East Elevation

Existing and Proposed West Elevation

Existing and Proposed North Elevation

PhotoVisual of the Site looking West along Newland

Site Photographs

View southwest from car park to rear of Nos. 78-88 Newland towards existing

hotel

View west from car park to rear of Nos. 78-88 Newland across application site

towards Mill House

View northwest from car park of Nos. 78-88 Newland to its rear elevation and existing building in application site

View southeast across Newland towards application site

View east across the rear of No. 94-96 Newland with existing building to centre

View southeast between No. 94-96 Newland and Viking House toward application site

View southeast across Newland toward application site with existing building

to centre (Nos. 78-88 to left and No. 94-96 to right)

View south across Newland toward application site with existing building to centre (Nos. 78-88 to left and No. 94-96 to right)