Site: Mill House and Viking House, Brayford Wharf North, Lincoln, LN1 1YT

Application No: 2015/0880/F

Target Date: 08 April 2016

Agent: Globe Consultants

Applicant: C/O Globe Consultants Ltd

Development: Planning permission for extensions and alterations to Mill House to create 3 No. two storey restaurant units with an external first floor terrace; new entrance area and two floors of offices above; extensions to side and roof of building to incorporate 26 No. apartments; and external alterations to include recladding and provision for glazed balconies.

Background Site Location and Description The application site is situated between and bounds Brayford Wharf North (to the south), Carholme Road (to the west) and Newland (to the north). It is occupied by two office blocks in Mill House and Viking House but the application has been amended and only Mill House is to be considered as part of this application. The access to that building is from Brayford Wharf North and vehicular access is from a traffic lit junction at the foot of the Brayford Way flyover where it meets Carholme Road. This serves the car park beneath the buildings and the adjacent uses. The proposals relate primarily to extensions to the building due to the majority of the building already being consented for residential use (see below). Moreover, the proposals seek a two storey extension to the front (south) elevation of Mill House toward Brayford Pool. The ground and first floors would be utilised alongside this extension to accommodate restaurant uses. Above this would be a narrow vertical projecting extension that would be to the east of Mill House and also project forward toward Brayford Pool, which would accommodate apartments. To the west of Mill House would be a further extension above the vehicular entrance to the car park to form office accommodation. Meanwhile, above the fifth floor, it is proposed that there would be a further two floors of residential apartments. Site History An application was considered earlier this year under reference 2015/0963/CPA for determination as to whether prior approval would be required for the change of use of existing Mill House office building (Use Class B1) to flats (Use Class C3). The proposals affected the majority of the first floor, apart from the frontage to Brayford Wharf North, and the whole of the second, third, fourth and fifth floors. There were no indications regarding the proposed number of units therein but the Highways Issues paper submitted with that application referred to the maximum number of apartments being 75 and served by 95 car parking spaces. Due to the restrictions imposed under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, under Schedule 2 Part 3 Paragraph O, it was only possible to consider transport and highways impacts of the

development; and contamination and flooding risks on the site. Prior approval was subsequently granted in line with these matters. Case Officer Site Visit Undertaken on 22/12/2015, 26/01/2016, 12/02/2016 and 29/02/2016.

Issues In this instance the main issues to consider are as follows:-

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. Flood Risk and Drainage; 6. Archaeological Implications of the Development of the Site; and 7. Contamination Risks on the Site.

Policies Referred to Policies 1, 8B, 18, 19F, 33, 34, 40, 46B, 48B, 55, 59 and 65B of the City of Lincoln Local Plan 1998; the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance, which is also relevant to the application and referred to where necessary. The City of Lincoln Council Air Quality Action Plan is also relevant to this application. Consultations Consultations were carried out in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement, adopted May 2014. Responses Responses have been received from various parties and referred to in detail where relevant.

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 and listed buildings and the impact of the setting of the Castle, Cathedral and wider hillside needs to be considered. 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. The Local Plan outlines policies in respect of whether specific uses would be permitted within the site. In particular, the location of residential use generally considered to be acceptable in the Mixed-Use Areas providing a number of requirements are met, as outlined in Policy 18. These relate to a number of issues, including the impact of development and the preservation of the mixed-use nature of the area. Policy 19F refers to the types of uses that would be appropriate in the Revival Area, these include housing, cultural activities and businesses, cafes, pubs/bars, restaurants, small scale retail and office uses and craft workshops. This would be subject to various criteria but should include a significant element of residential accommodation, unless, exceptionally, the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that such accommodation is not desirable or practical in a particular case. Furthermore, Policy 59 more specifically relates to the conversion of existing buildings to residential accommodation, subject to suitable control over the impacts upon amenity. ii) Policy in Relation to Design and Implications of Development upon Heritage Assets The Lincoln Townscape Appraisal 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 is located within the Brayford Character Area, which is described in the LTA as follows:-

“Brayford Character Area is in a key position in Lincoln sited below the north escarpment and the Cathedral and Castle, and at the confluence of the Fossdyke and River Witham, as well as being close to the commercial and retail centre of High Street and between the city centre and the University. Although much of the current townscape in the area is from the Modern Period the townscape is still strongly influenced by many earlier, and complex, developments, including the location of the Brayford Pool in prehistoric times, the building plots from the redevelopment of the waterfront in the Early Industrial Period, and the railway. The character of Brayford Waterfront’s townscape is strongly influenced by the Brayford Pool itself (an expanse of open water) with the River Witham to the south, and the mainly large, modern buildings facing on to the waterfront, along the north, east and south sides of Brayford Pool. The buildings are of varied type, style, massing, height (e.g. two to ten storeys), and form. There are also surviving buildings, of a smaller scale from previous periods of development. The Character Area has a lively character, during both the day and night, with a variety of uses including commercial and leisure, and an educational use as part of the University of Lincoln. The

marina, boat traffic, and the wildlife on the water all add to Brayford Pool’s distinctive character. The topography of the Character Area is flat.”

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. Local Plan Policy Policy 34 of the Local Plan 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. Policy 19F is more site specific as it refers to the Brayford and Glory Hole Revival Area and covers the design of parking and servicing for proposals. It requires that areas for this are attractive, safe and pedestrian-dominated environments. Meanwhile, Policy 33 (Waterside Development) refers to those instances where built development is proposed adjacent to lakes, rivers, canals and other watercourses. It is suggested that the design and layout of the proposed development will be expected to take full advantage of the townscape, landscape and natural habitat opportunities afforded by open water features and their margins. Policy 55 of the Local Plan is also relevant to the application as it seeks to protect views of the historic hillside from strategic points within the City, such as Tritton Road and the South Common; as well as views out of the City from the historic hillside and other historic parts of the City. 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. National Policy and Legislation 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).

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 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) The Prior Approval Application As alluded to above, there is an extant prior approval for the change of use of the existing building for residential use. It is not possible to revisit consideration of these elements and the application does not include those parts of the building. Moreover, the floor plans only reference the new development, i.e. the extensions or parts of the building that are utilised to link the extension. Consequently, it is necessary to determine whether there would be policy compliance in terms of the new proposals. ii) The Suitability of the Uses in terms of Land Use Designation Clearly the proposed primary use for residential accommodation would support the sustainability aim of Policies 18 and 59 with respect to sustainably located residential development within the Central Mixed-Use Area. However, this would be subject to assessment of the site constraints, i.e. impact upon amenity. Notwithstanding this, the general nature of the uses proposed are acceptable and have the potential to contribute to the overall vitality of the area and to create a purpose and presence beyond that normally expected in a development with residential focus. Moreover, the proposals would add to the leisure offer available around the Brayford Pool improving its sustainability and the impact that this has on the sustainability of the wider city. In so doing it would maintain the mixed-use character of the area and would accord with Policy 18(3) and 18(6) of the Local Plan. Furthermore, the uses would also interact with the Brayford Pool as required by Policy 33 (Waterside Development). c) The Implications of the Design of the Development upon Designated

Heritage Assets i) The Significance of the Relevant Designated Heritage Assets and Matters to

Consider Lincoln Cathedral is listed Grade I which means it is one of a small number (roughly 3%) of listed buildings in England that are of exceptional architectural and historic interest. In their response Historic England (HE) have referred in further detail to the

importance of its dominance on the historic hillside so officers shall not dwell on these matters, needless to say, their thoughts on this matter are not disputed. Moreover, the views that are available towards the historic hillside that encompass the Cathedral are iconic and therefore an important part of the appreciation of its setting. The policies and guidance referred to by HE in their identification of what constitutes setting and the impacts on this are also not disputed. Furthermore, as the Cathedral is within the Cathedral and City Conservation Area, it is also necessary to consider the impact of development upon it. In terms of the aforementioned views, they are recognised in Paragraph 55 of the Local Plan and are identified by HE as being regionally significant. Officers appreciate that views of the Cathedral and wider historic hillside have been affected in recent years by the construction of large buildings on Brayford Wharf North, including the Doubletree by Hilton hotel so views that have not been affected make an important contribution to the setting of these historic buildings, including recently created views from Brayford Way. The application site is 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. The Brayford pool element of the conservation area is characterised by large massing, tall buildings, many of which are modern providing a mixture of university, leisure and office accommodation. ii) Responses Received in Relation to the Proposals Historic England (HE) were consulted on the revisions to the application and remain concerned that “the addition of two storeys to Mill House is harmful as it makes the building much more prominent in some of the views from Brayford Way with the perceived height of the building rising above the Cathedral in some cases. As such it would compete with the Cathedral in these views in which the Cathedral is dominant.” They contend that this would lead to less than substantial harm in the context of Paragraph 134 of the Framework. The comments received are copied in full. iii) The Information Supporting the Application There are a number of interlinked issues that affect the development of the site but the key consideration regarding the proposals is the impact upon views into the city, particularly of the hillside. Accordingly, the Integrated Planning Statement and Sequential View Analysis from Brayford Way documents submitted with the application (undertaken since the application has been amended to exclude Viking House) assess the impact of the development upon key views in relation to Policy 55 of the Local Plan (see below) but also from Brayford Way towards the historic hillside.

Policy 55 Viewpoints

In terms of the former, officers are satisfied that the applicant’s assessment of the impact upon the majority of views identified within Policy 55 of the Local Plan would not be affected as they are primarily glimpse or constrained views. Those views that are more prominent would not be harmed, particularly along Carholme Road and from the Foss Bank. The latter is dealt with below. iv) The Implications of the Scale of the Proposals Upon Views of the Historic Hillside

from Brayford Way In terms of the general established scale of buildings within the area, the application site is adjacent to the Brayford Pool, which is enclosed to the northern side by a number of large buildings, including the Doubletree by Hilton and Mill House to the east of the flyover and Hayes Wharf to the west. Further to the east are Lucy Tower Car Park, the Odeon cinema, Witham Wharf and The Junction. In terms of the sequential analysis undertaken, the views from Brayford Way would initially be obstructed by the University’s Media, Humanities & Technology Building and then by the buildings that could be erected through the approved outline parameters within the Marina area of the masterplan for the University’s Campus. apartments available, the applicant's design team has worked closely with officers in order to reduce the scale of the additions to the roof of Mill House, including the omission of the proposals originally intended for Viking House, as officers were concerned that the proposals would obscure views of the Cathedral and the manner in which it assimilates into the hillside, i.e. it would not have been possible to appreciate its context. This is shown in the corresponding images below:

Scale: 1:50000"Long Views"refer to Policy 55 - CLLP 1998

7

4

5

3

2

1

13

12

11 10

9

8

7

4

5

3

2

1

13

12

11 10

9

8

14

16

16

14

1415

14

16

16

14

1415

a

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Lincoln City Council. Licence No. 100018414. 2003For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made.

This view north over Brayford Way (from south of the junction with Campus Way) illustrates the scale parameters of buildings approved under the University Masterplan. The application building would not be visible within this view.

This view north over Brayford Way (from north of the junction with Campus Way) again illustrates the scale parameters of buildings approved under the University Masterplan. The northwest corner of Mill House would be visible within this view beyond the University buildings. The Cathedral and its grounds are clearly visible above the roof extension and would maintain its dominance on the hillside.

This view north over Brayford Way reveals the majority of the western elevation of Mill House beyond the scale parameters of buildings approved under the University Masterplan. The lowered northwestern corner of the roof extension to Mill House would be visible adjacent to the Cathedral and the wider extension would sit slightly above the skyline. However, the Cathedral and the eastern hillside would remain visible beyond the extensions. The Cathedral would maintain its dominance on the historic hillside.

The entirety of Mill House is revealed from beyond the scale parameters of buildings approved under the University Masterplan. As with the previous view, the lowered northwester corner of the roof extension to Mill House would be visible adjacent to the Cathedral and the wider extension would sit slightly above the skyline. However, this image helps to illustrate how visually recessive the form and materials utilised in the alterations to the cladding of the existing building and the glazed extension would be in contrast to Hayes Wharf to the western side of Brayford Way. Moreover, the Cathedral would remain visible beyond the extensions and maintain its dominance in views toward the historic hillside.

In this alternate view from the eastern side of Brayford Way, it is clear that the additions to the building would be well to the east of the Cathedral and would not compete with the Cathedral

These further views of Mill House again illustrate the visually recessive nature of the alterations and extensions in contrast to Hayes Wharf. Moreover, the Cathedral would maintain its dominance in views toward the historic hillside.

Based upon the sequential view analysis undertaken, it is clear that there would remain an impact upon the views to the Cathedral from the point Mill House becomes visible behind the Marina site. Moreover, whilst there would be some obscuring of the hillside beneath the Cathedral, which would impact upon the experience of the Cathedral in its context, this would be a momentary impact due to the reduction in height of the extension by 0.3m for each floor and the removal of the top floor to the northwestern corner of Mill House (equating to one apartment). These amendments to the proposals would therefore combine to lower the element of the building that would most affect views toward the historic hillside. Although the extended building would appear above the skyline, due to the scale and form of the proposed glazed extension, it would not perceptibly compete with the Cathedral in views from Brayford Way. What is more, the aforementioned impact would diminish as one travels north over Brayford Way due to the angle of views between Mill House and the historic hillside opening out. In addition, whilst the extensions and alterations to Viking House would have had a strong visual relationship with the townscape to the north, particularly the rise of development up the historic hillside, Mill house should be considered within the context of the Brayford Pool. v) The Design of the Proposed Alterations and Extensions to Mill House and the

Impact of the Proposals upon the Conservation Area The Council’s Principal Conservation Officer perhaps provides the most suitable appraisal of the context of the application site in her response to officers:

“The advent of the railway saw the decline of the pool to transport goods and the decline of its functionality led to the eventual loss of the historic buildings. The LTA acknowledges that the Modern period (1968 – 2007) has seen large scale redevelopment of the area that has created a markedly different character with the loss of much of the earlier townscape. Reinvention of the area as a focus for leisure and education has seen the development of cinema and restaurants along Brayford Wharf North and Lincoln university campus along Brayford Wharf South. Therefore, in terms of the character and appearance of the Conservation area in this location, the heritage context has been largely lost both in terms of built fabric and functionality and is now characterised by modern large massing, tall buildings, providing a mixture of university, leisure and office accommodation. The Brayford site overall represents an organic evolution of modern buildings albeit closely aligned with a traditional urban grain and notable for their individuality.”

Taking this context into account, 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, the alterations and extensions to Mill House will sit in their context. When one assesses the implications of the imposition of the proposed extension to Mill House and the scale of the buildings close by, a height greater than the existing building as suggested is appropriate in this instance. Moreover, the additional storeys respond to the massing of the Brayford and this physical relationship is reinforced by the way the southern elevation cascades down towards the wharfside.

What is more, by assessing other contemporary architecture in the area it is clear that contemporary design can sit well within the area and in most cases these are found to be well-designed modern additions, particularly in the conservation area. In terms of the proposed development, given the complex interaction with its context, there are a number of factors such as the form and design of a building, together with its position within the site and the separation distances from other buildings that will affect how comfortably, or not, the height of the additions to the buildings will sit within the conservation area. Given the form of the alterations to the building, officers consider that the proposals would comfortably assimilate into the surrounding townscape. This is particularly so due to the design of the proposed alterations to the buildings being of a high quality and the overall articulation of the building. Moreover, the facing of the façades utilises a small palette of materials that is complimentary in colour and texture to the red brick façades of the existing building, with glass and dark grey cladding planks laid horizontally being utilised for alterations and extensions; and the solid to void ratio is comfortable and horizontal / vertical elements balanced.

Visual of proposed development from across Brayford Pool

In terms of the lower level interventions to the building, there would be fully glazed façades to the ground floor commercial units that project toward the front façade of the Doubletree and curve back to the southwestern corner of Mill House. Above the ground floor would be a terrace with glazed balcony and recessed glazed first floor. This combination of features would be a new one facing the Brayford Pool but the glazed form of treatment would not be dissimilar to other frontages along Brayford Wharf North so would not be out of character with the existing form of development.

Proposed Brayford Wharf North frontage

As can be seen from the vista above, the principal extension to the building, which is proposed to be to the seventh floor projects forward of the existing Mill House frontage but would rake back toward the roof of the building. It is wrapped with dark horizontal cladding to the top of the sixth floor, the seventh being glazed and raked also. This helps to address the new frontage line and give the building a greater degree of presence in the overall frontage to Brayford Wharf North.

The above image shows the proposed side extension above the entrance to the car park that will incorporate offices. Since this image was produced a second storey has

been added to this, which is shown on the plans contained elsewhere in this report. The architectural language is typical of that which has evolved alongside the Brayford. In terms of the wider glazed extension to the roof of Mill House, the information provided in support of the application, including additional visuals, demonstrates that the scale, form and expression of this element would be a recessive light weight intervention. Indeed, through manipulation of a similar glazed feature at the Tate Modern in London, the applicant has been able to demonstrate the impact of lighting from a glazed roof extension. Moreover, the potential maximum degree of lighting resulting from all window blinds/curtains being open and rooms lit would have a minor impact in terms of non daylight hours when the Cathedral is lit.

Visual of the Tate Modern manipulated to show lit residential scale windows and

solid elements between as with the glazed extension to the roof of Mill House In addition to the above, the position of the existing car parking and access for servicing would ensure that any reconfiguration of this facility of function would not be detrimental to the character or appearance of the conservation area or user experience of the public realm. vi) The Impact of the Proposals upon Other Heritage Assets In views back towards the site from the north and considering the potential impact upon the setting of Nos. 78-88 Newland and 64 Newland, which are both grade II listed buildings, the impact upon the setting of these heritage assets has been mitigated by the removal of the proposed upper storeys to Viking House. Moreover, given the depth of the plot the new built element is now recessed approximately 24 metres further south than the previous scheme which further negates any meaningful visual impact. Therefore, officers agree with the Council’s Principal Conservation Officer that “in conjunction with the approved scheme to extend the neighbouring Hilton Hotel, which is a material consideration, it is considered that the setting of these assets is preserved by this proposal.”

vii) Summary It is clear that the Brayford is characterised by a multitude of architectural forms and styles but the architectural form and expression of the alterations and extensions to the building would be at ease with the form and architecture of the building and wider character and appearance of the conservation area. Furthermore, the amendments to the application ensure that a greater degree of the historic hillside around the Cathedral would be visible with the development than that originally proposed; and the setting of nearby listed buildings would be preserved. d) Development Contributions i) Affordable Housing Provision

The Framework maintains the principle of creating sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities and calls for local planning authorities to set policies for meeting identified affordable housing needs on site unless offsite provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified (para. 50). A threshold of 15 dwellings with 20% of properties being affordable would apply, as outlined in the Council’s supplementary planning guidance. There would therefore need to be discussion with applicants to bring forth provision of affordable housing. This would be on the basis of need, site suitability and the economics of provision; and the occupancy should be restricted to households living in Lincoln or dependent upon Lincoln residents and unable to afford either low cost housing for purchase (defined on the basis of the average sold prices for flats and maisonettes from land registry from data available for 2014) or with a composition and income which qualifies them for housing benefit. The response from the Council’s Strategic Housing Officer suggests that the Council’s current policy for affordable housing dictates that 20% of all units should be affordable homes, which means the proposed development would provide 5 units. However, given the nature of the proposals it is possible that the developer may wish to consider an offsite contribution. The provision of such housing should be secured either through a Section 106 agreement, which should be signed prior to any planning decision to secure the affordable housing units, or by virtue of a planning condition. In the absence of such an agreement the application would undermine the principles of sustainable development outlined in the Framework. Compliance would accord with Paragraph 203 of the Framework in relation to planning obligations. ii) Other Community Infrastructure and Services

The Framework highlights that planning should be a creative exercise in finding ways of enhancing and improving the places in which people live (para.17). Perhaps most crucially however, is Paragraph 70 which refers to new development and states:

“To deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should:

Plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses, and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments; and

Ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services.”

Meanwhile, paragraphs 173-177 (inc.) set out considerations in relation to ensuring development viability and deliverability with reference to obligations, it makes the point that any affordable housing or local standards requirements that may be applied should be assessed at the plan making stage, where possible, and kept under review. However, this is within the context of paragraph 203 which asks local planning authorities to consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations. Education Provision

Paragraph 72 of the Framework refers to the importance of ensuring "that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities." The Framework therefore advocates that LPAs should "give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools". No response has been received from LCC Children’s Services in relation to the development so officers cannot pursue this matter any further Playing Fields / Play Space / Local Environmental Improvements As the development would result in an increase in the number of households within the locality, the Council would seek to improve or provide play and amenity and open space that could be utilised by the development (Policies 48B and 65B and Appendix D of the Local Plan). This would accord with paragraph 73 of the Framework which outlines the importance of the health and well-being of communities. In this instance, given the scale of the development it is suggested that £34,877 is procured in order to make such improvements. This request would need to be secured through a S106 agreement. iii) Viability and the Section 106 Agreement

The applicant is currently in discussions with officers to consider the potential implications of this contribution and affordable housing provision. It may ultimately prove necessary to have the applicant’s proposals independently assessed by the District Valuer. Notwithstanding the outcome of these discussions, as the situation may change in the future it is suggested that this issue needs to be treated with caution and that the future impacts of these requests should be taken into account so an overage clause / clawback mechanism inserted into any agreement would be justified on the basis of any reduction in provision of contributions or affordable housing, as this would enable unexpected profits to be factored in and revised provision sought where possible.

On this basis, it is the recommendation of officers that were Members minded to

approve planning permission then authority should be delegated to officers to negotiate the Section 106 agreement. If there are any issues in resolving this matter or if it is not being actively pursued towards a resolution within 6 months of this meeting the application will be put back to the Planning Committee for further consideration. e) The Planning Balance Although the presumption in favour of sustainable development need not necessarily apply in such circumstances, the thrust of the Framework is to approve sustainable development so significant weight should be given to this matter. Whilst officers agree with Historic England that there wold be harm resulting from the development this would be at the very lesser end of the scale in terms of quantifying less than substantial harm, as outlined in the Framework. Moreover, there would be a low impact that would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme to the sustainability of the Brayford Pool and the impact this has on the sustainability of the wider city but also the positive contributions to the conservation area. In terms of the latter, in this instance officers consider that the proposals would make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the West Parade and Brayford Conservation Area. What is more, officers are satisfied that the proposals would not be detrimental to views to the Cathedral and hillside . As such, officers would advise Members that there would not appear to be grounds to resist the development in this regard. However, as the devil will be in the detail, the finite details of the materials palette can be agreed in due course to ensure that the materials used would be of sufficiently high standard to ensure that the quality of the design is brought to bear and that a positive contribution is made as suggested by the proposed visuals. 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 adjacent conservation area and setting of the historic hillside, including the Cathedral. 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. Furthermore, subject to the agreement of the other matters referenced above, the principle of the use would be policy compliant with local and national policies in terms of the nature of the use including its location and the supply of housing; the provision of affordable housing and other community infrastructure and services.

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) which relates to development more specifically located within Mixed-Use Areas. In addition, Policy 59, which specifically refers to the conversion of buildings to residential use, requires that a satisfactory level of residential amenities will be provided/safeguarded both for residents of the accommodation itself and for neighbours, having particular regard to the need for adequate soundproofing, privacy and provision of external communal areas and facilities. 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”. Furthermore, Policy 46B (Protecting the Water Environment) requires that proposals for development adjacent to water environments protect the public. b) Assessment of the Implications of the Proposals There are not any permanent residential properties directly adjacent to the site, as accommodation is transient in nature due to the hotel use to the east of the site, the amenities of the users of which would not necessarily be afforded the same level of protection as residential properties but the impact should still be considered upon other users. In addition, the site is located adjacent to a busy thoroughfare so the impact upon users of Brayford Wharf North needs to be considered alongside those of the proposed residential accommodation. i) Noise and Odour from the Proposed Development The proposals are for a roof terrace above the ground floor element of the restaurants facing Brayford Way so the noise associated with these would not necessarily be of the same detriment as a drinking establishment. However, in order to protect the amenities that the future occupants of the proposed apartments would expect to enjoy, it would be necessary for a noise assessment to be submitted prior to occupation which would include a scheme for mitigation of the outbreak of noise from the building and use of terraces, including the hours of operation. Subject to this information being received, it is considered that the impact of noise from the development would not be of sufficient detriment to warrant the refusal of the application.

Similarly, the application is not supported by an assessment of the noise or odour control for the kitchen extraction systems or other plant and machinery and any entertainment within the restaurants. However, it is considered that it would be reasonable to agree these matters by planning condition. 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. ii) Noise Impacting the Proposed Development The application is not supported by an acoustic report but the application for prior approval for the building did not have to address these implications. As such, it would be unreasonable to request the developer to provide a report covering the additional accommodation to the roof of the building that faces the highway, particularly as this is sat back a significant distance from the edge of the pavement and significantly elevated so concentrations of noise would not be as high as those at lower levels. As such, officers recommend that there would not appear to be any sufficient grounds to object to the application upon this basis. iii) Potential for Overshadowing or Loss of Light The extension to the west of the building would close the angle from which a lower or later evening sun would pass between the proposed building towards the adjacent hotel and to the windows of the higher level apartments to the north of the extension. However, the impact would not be so harmful to warrant refusal of the application, particularly as the rooms within the hotel are for bedrooms which one would occupy during the evening in any case and the occupants of the proposed apartments have a choice as to whether to purchase the apartments. iv) Scale, Massing and Outlook It is clear that the proposed extensions to southeastern corner of Mill House would be closer to the western elevation of the Doubletree but the separation distance of around 12.5m would ensure that there would not be an oppressive relationship between the two buildings that would be harmful to the occupants of the proposed apartments or vice versa. Similarly, the extensions elsewhere to the roof of the building would not lead to an overbearing affect as, although the relationship with the hotel would be a close one, this 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. Given the orientation of the site, the proposed additions to the roof of the building would be unlikely to have a greater impact than the existing building upon the public house immediately to the west.

v) Overlooking and Loss of Privacy There are windows in the proposed elevations to the eastern elevation of the extension to Mill House which would face toward the windows in the west elevation of the adjacent hotel which serve a guest bedrooms and the Electric Bar located on the fifth floor of the hotel. Whilst the window to window relationship would be close, it would be for occupants to determine whether they would be satisfied with the relationship to the hotel. As with the above the guests at the hotel would not expect the same degree of protection afforded to them as one would expect with a residential situation. vi) Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour A consultation response has 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. vii) Other Matters The control of noise, dust, vibration and waste (management, reduction, recovery, storage, segregation and disposal) can be controlled through the submission of a Construction Management Plan by condition. Public safety is an important issue given the location of the proposals adjacent to Brayford Pool but there is no direct change in the nature of the relationship of the proposed buildings to those anywhere else along Brayford Wharf North. Consequently, officers are satisfied that there would not be conflict with Policy 46B of the Local Plan. c) The Planning Balance Taking all the above in to account, it is considered that subject to planning conditions, the proposals could be accommodated within the site in the manner suggested without causing unacceptable harm. Moreover, upon the basis of orientation and position of the buildings, their proximity to existing development and the scale of the building and location of windows, officers are satisfied that there would not be an unacceptable increase in the harm that would be caused to the users of nearby properties in terms of the amenities that they would expect to enjoy. There would therefore be compliance with Local Plan policies, as well as the amenity principles in the Framework. However, it would be necessary to agree the details suggested by condition above, including the control working hours during the construction of the development. Consequently, as these matters can all be resolved by suitable planning conditions Members are advised that this matter would not be sufficient to outweigh the presumption in favour of sustainable development or tip the planning balance against 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) The Lincoln Context The application site is located within the Air Quality Management Areas declared by the Council due to the likely exceedance 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. c) Assessment of the Implications of the Proposals The application is not supported by any information in relation to air quality but the application for prior approval for the building did not have to address these implications. As such, it would be unreasonable to request the developer to provide a report covering the additional accommodation to the roof of the building that faces the highway, particularly as this is sat back a significant distance from the edge of the pavement and significantly elevated so concentrations of any pollutants would not be as high as those at lower levels.

Notwithstanding this, it would be reasonable to encourage sustainable travel through the provision of electric vehicle recharging points within the development. This could be controlled by planning condition. d) The Planning Balance Taking all the above in to account, as these matters can all be resolved by suitable planning conditions Members are advised that this matter would not be sufficient to outweigh the presumption in favour of sustainable development or tip the planning balance against the application. 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 of the Local Plan refers to the location of developments that could attract attracting large numbers of people; Policy 8(2) refers to parking and servicing provision in central Lincoln, including the requirements for parking within developments in the area; Policy 34 refers to vehicle and cycle parking and making satisfactory provision for access by means other than the car; Policy 18(9) outlines that development must not result in levels of traffic or on-street parking which would cause road safety problems; and Policy 19F requires that parking provided is for businesses operating or residential premises located within the Brayford and Glory Hole Revival Area. However, the number of spaces should be kept to a minimum. 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. In this instance, the application is supported by a Transport Statement and it is suggested that there would be sufficient spaces within the car park within the site to serve the development, whilst also resulting in a reduction in vehicle trips to and from the site due to the existing concentration of office space within Mill and Viking House. Whilst the level of parking provided would be less than that which would normally be expected in a residential context, the number of vehicles that would be associated with the use would be significantly less than the office use. There are other permitted car parks nearby but, as with other applications for development within the city centre, there is a danger that subsequent indiscriminate parking of vehicles could take place within nearby residential areas. However, this would be as a result of personal choices by road users and therefore indirectly linked

to the provision of parking within the development below the levels specified within the Local Plan. Further to the above, the aforementioned information refers to the existing trip rates for the former office use and the proposed apartments. The application for prior approval was considered by the Highway Authority and they considered that the development to be acceptable. Consequently, it is considered that the increase in the number of apartments above that referred to in that application would not result in a sufficiently detrimental impact to be in conflict with Paragraph 32 of the Framework. Notwithstanding this, as the accommodation would be located adjacent to the Brayford Pool, it would be accessible on foot and by bicycle and can also be reached conveniently by public transport as it is not far from the bus routes and the railway station. However, it would be necessary to agree the details for cycle and bin storage for the site. c) The Planning Balance In the absence of a response from the County Council, as Highway Authority, in respect of access, highway safety or traffic capacity, officers will rely on the fact that the overall site is sustainable and that the majority of the building has already been granted prior approval for residential use with their support. Moreover, residential accommodation is unlikely to yield the same degree of parking required by office development, particularly as it is centrally located and accessible by other means. In the context of Paragraph 32 of the Framework, officers therefore recommend that in this instance the development of this site should not be prevented or refused on transport grounds. Moreover, there does not appear to be any evidence from the Highway Authority to suggest that the residual cumulative impacts of the development would be severe. Consequently, Members are advised that this matter would not be sufficient to outweigh the presumption in favour of sustainable development or tip the planning balance against the application. 5) Flood Risk and Drainage a) 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. Policy 46B of the Local Plan requires development in waterside locations to minimise flood risk. Meanwhile, 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).

b) Assessment of the Implications of the Proposals In terms of flood risk, the site lies within Flood Zone 3a ‘high probability’ and would be classified as more vulnerable in nature. The Framework is clear in directing new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding, but where development is necessary, it should be made safe without increasing the risk elsewhere. It advocates a sequential, risk based approach to the location of development and applicants are first required to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites appropriate for the development which are at a lower risk from flooding. i) The Sequential Test In this instance the application site is located within a regeneration area identified within Policy 19F of the Local Plan and occupies a key frontage position to the Brayford Pool which is a tourist destination and focal point for leisure and recreation in the city. Therefore, locating the proposed accommodation elsewhere could be potentially challenging and undermine the regeneration of the area, as well as the sustainability of the wider area, increasing the need to travel. As such officers are satisfied that the proposals would pass the Sequential Test required by the Framework. ii) The Exception Test If, following application of this Sequential Test, it is not possible, consistent with wider sustainability objectives, for the development to be located in zones with a lower probability of flooding, an Exception Test should be applied if appropriate. For the Exception Test to be passed:

it must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared; and

a site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

In terms of the former, it is clear that the development provides wider sustainability benefits, in terms of its location adjacent to the City Centre and the associated sustainable economic growth which would result in the continued expansion of the Brayford Pool as a leisure destination. As well as this, the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has shown that flood risk at the site can be adequately mitigated through the arrangement of finished floor levels and adequate flood resilience and resistance measures being incorporated into the building. The Environment Agency is satisfied that the relevant policy tests are met and subject to the floor levels and overall findings of the FRA being conditioned, that the proposal is acceptable in terms of the risks of the development from flooding. The Internal Drainage Board has returned comments to the Highway Authority with objections in relation to the proposals due to the lack of an appropriate drainage strategy. Similarly, Anglian Water have suggested that the drainage strategy is unacceptable but have not suggested in any detail why this is the case. It is

unreasonable to restrict development upon this basis. Moreover, it is clear in the FRA that surface water disposal for the development would be within the site on permeable paving and attenuation in the sub base beneath. It is suggested that this will maintain the pre-development 1 in 1 year outflow of 24l/s as agreed with Anglian Water prior to the submission of the application. This information appears to be at odds with the current response from Anglian Water. As the proposals would not result in an increase in built development that would significantly alter the nature of run-off from the site it would not be reasonable to resist the development upon the basis of the risks associated with the proposals. iii) Foul Water Disposal Related to the Development The FRA also outlines the approach to foul water disposal for the development. In this instance, it is intended that foul water flows are to the existing foul water public sewer. Anglian Water has assessed the application and consider that there would be available capacity within the foul water system to serve the development. c) The Planning Balance As the matters referred to above can all be resolved by suitable planning conditions officers advise Members that this matter would not be sufficient to outweigh the presumption in favour of sustainable development or tip the planning balance against the application. 6) Archaeological Implications of the Development of the Site 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 The application has been the subject of in-depth discussion and assessment in order to ensure that any implications upon archaeology are satisfactorily addressed through the application. This includes the submission of a report of the evaluation work undertaken for the site in 2015. The City Archaeologist has responded as part of

consultation on this application and confirmed that there may be archaeological remains of interest in the footprint of the proposed development. Moreover, he suggests that: “Any mitigation strategy for this aspect of the proposed development will depend on the proposed layout of the foundations (which have not been supplied as yet). In general, any pile clusters will require excavation, but sensitive piling layout may allow for preservation of archaeological remains in situ.” Consequently, there would be a need for archaeological intervention to ensure that locally important remains associated with Roman-Medieval settlement along the Brayford are recorded before destruction. Any mitigation can therefore be undertaken under a planning condition, in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 135 of the Framework. c) The Planning Balance

As the matters referred to above can all be resolved by suitable planning conditions officers advise Members that this matter would not be sufficient to outweigh the presumption in favour of sustainable development or tip the planning balance against the application. 7) Contamination Risks on the Site a) 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.”

b) Assessment of the Implications of the Proposals The application has been assessed by the Council’s Scientific Officer and the Environment Agency (the EA), including the Geo-Environmental Report, and no further work or remediation is required unless any soft landscaping is proposed and the EA also suggest that the no concerns with regard to the protection of controlled waters. In this instance no soft landscaping is shown within the application. As such, the Scientific Officer has recommended that a condition can be used in any consent granted to prevent any soft landscaping directly on the ground other than that in contained planters; as well as a condition to deal with unexpected contamination. Officers consider that this would be relevant and reasonable in accordance with the requirements of Paragraphs 109, 120, 121 and 204 of the Framework. c) The Planning Balance

As the matters referred to above can all be resolved by suitable planning conditions officers would advise Members that this matter 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, required by the National Planning Policy Framework, need not necessarily apply in terms of development that could affect designated heritage assets, taking into account all of the matters referred to in this officer report, officers consider that the design of the development proposed would make a positive contribution to the setting of the adjacent West Parade and Brayford Conservation Area. Specifically in terms of scale, the visual assessment demonstrates that whilst the proposal would have an impact on views of the historic hillside this would not be unacceptable and the scale would not compete with the Cathedral, particularly given the architecture of the building. Whilst officers agree with Historic England that there wold be harm resulting from the development this would be at the very lesser end of the scale in terms of quantifying less than substantial harm, as outlined in the Framework. Moreover, there would be a low impact that would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme to the sustainability of the Brayford Pool and the impact this has on the sustainability of the wider city but also the positive contributions to the conservation area. The presumption in favour of sustainable development would therefore apply to the proposal as there would not be conflict with Local Plan Policies in respect of the aforementioned matters. Moreover, subject to Planning Conditions and agreements under Section 106 of the Planning Act, the principle of the development is considered to be acceptable in terms of the nature of the use including its location and the supply

of housing; the provision of affordable housing and other community infrastructure and services. Furthermore, there would not be conflict in terms of the following matters:

residential amenity;

highway safety, traffic capacity and air quality;

the risks associated with flooding and drainage;

archaeological heritage; and

land contamination. Furthermore, the relevant sections of the report would provide assurance that the overall impact of the proposals would not be harmful within their context. Officers would therefore advise that there would not be sufficient grounds to refuse the application upon any of the issues referred to in this report and that the planning balance should be in favour of the application. This conclusion has been arrived at having taken into account all other relevant material considerations, none of which outweigh the reasons for the officer recommendation made below. Financial Implications None. Legal Implications Negotiation of S106 needs to be undertaken. Application Negotiated Either at Pre-Application or During Process of Application Yes – the application was amended to remove the proposals for Viking House; and the footprint of the glazed roof extension was reduced. Equality Implications None. Application Determined Within Target Date Yes – subject to s106 being agreed.

Recommendation It is the recommendation of officers that this application be approved subject to the conditions below but with authority to be delegated to officers to formulate these conditions and negotiate the Section 106 agreement. If there were any issues regarding this matter and it is not been resolved or is not being actively pursued towards a resolution within 6 months of this meeting the application will be put back to the Planning Committee for further consideration.

Conditions

1. Timeframe of permission (3 years); 2. Plan conformity; 3. Materials; 4. Details of plant, machinery and noise attenuation; 5. Flood Risk Assessment; 6. No planting due to contamination; 7. Reporting of unexpected contamination; 8. Electric Vehicle Recharging Points; and 9. Parking maintained for use permitted.

Report by: Planning Manager

Comments Received

THE FOLLOWING ARE IN RELATION TO THE REVISED PROPOSALS WHICH DO NOT INCLUDE EXTENSIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO VIKING HOUSE:-

HISTORIC ENGLAND

Thank you for consulting us on 19 February 2016 on the amended scheme for the above site. We previously gave advice on a similar scheme on 15 January 2016. Our specialist staff have considered the amended scheme and we offer the following advice. Historic England Advice Our letter of 15 January 2016 provided advice on the significance and setting of heritage assets affected by the proposed scheme, most particularly Lincoln Cathedral (listed Grade I). Views to and from the Cathedral and Lincoln’s historic hillside contribute greatly to the significance of Lincoln as an historic city as well as the setting and significance of the Cathedral and other designated heritage assets. This includes views from around the Brayford itself, including dynamic views along Brayford Way. The proposed scheme has been amended to remove alterations to Viking House on the north of the site including the additional two floors. Further information has also been provided to illustrate the potential impact, including a sequential view analysis along Brayford Way which has been very helpful in allowing us to come to a view on the proposed scheme. Historic England considers that the retention of the current height of Viking House provides a marked reduction in the harm caused to the setting and significance of the Cathedral and other heritage assets affected. It means that the historic hillside to the south and east of the Cathedral remains visible in most of the views affected, allowing the Cathedral to be seen in its important wider historic setting of the hillside (which adds greatly to the contribution of these particular views to its significance). We still consider that the addition of two storeys to Mill House is harmful as it makes the building much more prominent in some of the views from Brayford Way with the perceived height of the building rising above the Cathedral in some cases. As such it would compete with the Cathedral in these views in which the Cathedral is dominant. We consider that the additional storeys would have more of an impact than is shown in some of the 3D visuals, where the additional storeys appear quite feint, although the sequential view analysis shows them correctly as solid additions to the existing building. As previously advised 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. 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 also be taken into account by your authority in determining this application. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that any harm or loss of significance of designated heritage assets should require ‘clear and convincing justification’ (paragraph 132). Paragraph 134 of the NPPF advises that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. As advised above, we consider that the level of harm has been reduced compared to the initial scheme, in that more of the historic hillside is now visible, although it remains harmful in that the additional storeys on Mill House still compete for prominence in some views. We advise that it would be for your authority to determine whether the proposed additional storeys on Mill House are justified and whether the public benefits outweigh the harm caused. 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 Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas

LINCOLN CIVIC TRUST Objection - The principle of the overall plan to re-generate the area is acceptable to the committee but for the following: 1. The addition of two storeys was out of keeping, was considered to be

overdevelopment and produced a totally different street scene particularly on the Newland elevation. It also adds further loss of the city scape from the University site.

2. The Colour scheme shown in the computer generated photographs is totally

inappropriate and although we object in principle to the additional two storeys (above), the black and white scheme proposed for them is wholly unacceptable. We would like to suggest that a rethink of the scheme should be proposed.

3. We were concerned about vehicle access which must not be from the Brayford

Wharf North eastern route. 4. The Newland street scene gives rise to considerable concern to the Trust as with

the Hilton Hotel addition and now this proposal, the original view of the street is being transformed but not in a sympathetic way. This is a major artery to the city and sits opposite the major building of the County Council Offices.

If you have any queries then please do contact us Many regards

Cate Waby Manager/Secretary

THE FOLLOWING ARE IN RELATION TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSALS WHICH

INCLUDED EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO VIKING HOUSE:-

HISTORIC ENGLAND Summary Views to and from Lincoln Cathedral (listed Grade I) and Lincoln’s historic hillside contribute greatly to the significance of Lincoln as an historic city as well as the setting and significance of the Cathedral and other designated heritage assets. This includes views from around the Brayford itself, including dynamic views along Brayford Way. Newland contributes strongly to the character and appearance of the West Parade and Brayford conservation area, including the historic sense of enclosure along Newland. The proposed scheme is for extensive alterations to Mill House and Viking House including a ground and first floor glazed extension to the south elevation, an external first floor terrace, an extension to the south east elevation to provide 6 further storeys and an additional two storeys to the roof of the existing building. Historic England advises that there is currently insufficient information to understand the impact of the proposed scheme on the setting and significance of the Cathedral, in particular, including in dynamic views of the Cathedral and historic hillside from Brayford Way and in views from south of the site. We recommend that photomontages are provided of these views with the proposed scheme superimposed. Notwithstanding that, we are very concerned that the proposed scheme is likely to have a significant, negative impact on important views of the Cathedral and historic hillside, particularly views from Brayford Way in which it would compete for dominance with the Cathedral. We also advise that the north elevation as currently proposed would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the nearby listed buildings as it would be too prominent and would have a negative impact on the sense of enclosure along Newland. Our advice reflects policy and guidance provided in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (particularly paragraphs 8, 17, 128, 129, 131 and 132), the NPPF Planning Policy Guidance and in 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. We recommend that the application should not be determined until you have sufficient information to understand the impact of the proposed scheme on the significance and setting of the designated heritage assets affected, particularly in views of the Cathedral and historic hillside. I would be grateful if you would re-consult Historic England when further information is provided.

Historic England Advice Significance Lincoln Cathedral is listed Grade I which means it is one of a small proportion (about 3%) of listed buildings which are of exceptional architectural and historic interest. A key part of the Cathedral’s significance and setting, located as it is on the north escarpment high above the Witham gap and lower city, is that it dominates the city, skyline and surrounding landscape. This domination was intentional and meant to glorify God and signify the importance of the Church. The historic townscape on the north escarpment and hillside around the Cathedral is considered by many to be the most important historic townscape in the East Midlands. It forms a central part of the Cathedral and City Centre conservation area and includes the newly revealed Lincoln Castle (a scheduled monument) and many other highly designated heritage assets as well as the Cathedral. Views to and from the Cathedral and the historic hillside contribute greatly to the significance of Lincoln as an historic city as well as the setting and significance of the Cathedral and other designated heritage assets. Wider views that encompass large areas of the historic hillside around the Cathedral, areas which are dominated by the Cathedral itself, form some of the most iconic views of Lincoln and the Cathedral. This includes views from around the Brayford itself and within the West Parade and Brayford Conservation Area, some of which were captured in historic paintings and prints by Carmichael and Buck. Many of these wider views have been lost due to the large scale of recent development on the north side of the Brayford and there are now few places in Lincoln where wide views of the Cathedral and large areas of the historic hillside can be seen together. However, the development of Brayford Way flyover created important wider views of the Cathedral and historic hillside from the flyover itself and on the south side of the Brayford. These views make a strong contribution to the setting and significance of the Cathedral and heritage assets which make up the historic hillside as a whole. Views from the historic hillside also make an important contribution to the setting and significance of the Cathedral and nearby designated heritage assets including the conservation area. The proposed scheme also 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 does 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 it makes to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the nearby listed buildings. Impact of the proposed scheme The proposed scheme is for extensive alterations to Mill House and Viking House including a ground and first floor glazed extension to the south elevation, an external first floor terrace, an extension to the south east elevation to provide 6 further storeys and an additional two storeys to the roof of the existing building. In order to understand the impact of the proposed scheme on the setting and significance of the Cathedral in particular, the impact on dynamic views of the Cathedral and historic hillside from Brayford Way should be fully considered, as well as views from south of the proposed site. We advise that there is currently insufficient information to understand the impact of the proposed scheme on these views. We recommend that photomontages are provided of these views with the proposed scheme superimposed. Notwithstanding that, we are very concerned that the proposed scheme is likely to have a significant negative impact on important views of the Cathedral and historic hillside. It is likely to be overly prominent in dynamic views from along Brayford Way and be seen at the same height as the Cathedral or even above it. As such it would compete strongly with the Cathedral in these views in which the Cathedral is dominant. We also advise that the north elevation as currently proposed 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 would be too obtrusive and would be overly prominent. Legislation, policy and guidance 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. 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 also be taken into account by your authority in determining this application. 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). For the reasons given above, Historic England considers that the application does not provide the necessary information required by the NPPF for your authority to satisfy yourself that you have received sufficient information from the applicant to understand the impact of the proposal on the significance and setting of the designated heritage assets affected (NPPF, paragraph 128). This level of information is required in order to enable you to avoid or minimise conflict between a heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal when considering the impact of this scheme on the historic environment since you will need to take into account an assessment of the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected (including by development affecting an asset’s setting) (NPPF, paragraph 129). 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’. Your authority must also be satisfied that you have received sufficient information regarding the archaeological impacts of the proposed scheme to enable you to determine the application in line with the NPPF. 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.

Recommendation We recommend that the application should not be determined until you have sufficient information to understand the impact of the proposed scheme on the significance and setting of the designated heritage assets affected. I would be grateful if you would re-consult Historic England when further information is provided. 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 Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas

INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD (sent to Lead Local Flood Authority)

In the absence of an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Drainage Strategy the Board Objects to the application. Reason: The FRA and Drainage Strategy submitted with the application does not demonstrate effectively how the flood risk can be safely managed. In particular

the FRA fails to fully identify the existing on site drainage system and true existing discharge rate. The theoretical calculated rate based on impermeable area is likely to be unrealistic

the FRA indicates that the existing surface water is discharged to the combine sewers, as the site is adjacent to the Brayford Pool any proposed discharge should direct here at rates agreed with the EA because the watercourse is main river

Any discharge to combined sewer would have to be agreed with Anglian Water

Attenuation volumes should be revised to take into account of the above

The FRA does not include any information with regard to the flood risk from the River Trent system which has flood levels higher than the River Witham system

No development should be commenced until the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority and Environment Agency has approved a scheme for the provision, implementation and future maintenance of a surface water drainage system. The surface water run-off should be limited to the greenfield rate for this Brownfield site. 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. It is noted that the proposed ground floor is carpark and retail. Regards Guy Hird (Engineering Services Officer) Upper Witham, Witham First District & Witham Third District IDBs

LINCOLNSHIRE POLICE 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

Proposed Floor Plans

Note: These Plans do not show the conversion works permitted under the Prior Approval Application

Proposed Ground Floor Plan

Proposed First Floor Plan

Proposed Second Floor Plan

Proposed Third, Fourth and Fifth Floor Plans

Proposed Sixth and Seventh Floor Plans

The apartments shown above with stairs are duplex apartments which occupy space on floors six and seven, the other apartments occupy space on one floor only, so these are repeated on each floor, apart from the apartment in the bottom left corner of the plan.

3D Visual of the building with the roof extension identified

South Elevation (Fronting Brayford Wharf North)

West Elevation (Facing Carholme Road)

As referred to in the report, the height of the left-hand frontage has been reduced, this is evident with the reduction between the west and north wings of Mill House.

East Elevation

This plan shows the relationship of the ground and first floor commercial uses fronting Brayford Wharf North (to the left), as well as the existing car parking

North Elevation

The reduction in the height of the northwest corner of the north wing is evident with the image above.

North Elevation of Southern Wing (Facing into Courtyard where Car Parking is Situated)

South Elevation of Northern Wing (Facing into Courtyard where Car Parking is Situated)

Site Photographs – Views from Beyond Site

Please Note: views from Brayford Way could be obscured by the proposals for the University’s Marina site. The existing approved Masterplan Parameters are referred to elsewhere in this report.

View north across Brayford Pool from the University’s Marina site

View north from the eastern side of Brayford Way above and across the

University’s Marina site

View north from the western side of Brayford Way

View east from western side of Brayford Way

View north across Brayford Pool showing the eastern side of the application site in the context of the Brayford Wharf North frontage. The Doubletree by

Hilton Hotel lies to the centre of the image

View east from Brayford Way showing the frontage of the site in the context of

the wider setting of the Brayford Pool

Site Photographs – Adjacent to the Site

View northwest toward Mill House with the elevated car park visible

(the seven storey extension to the building would be accommodated here)

View east towards the Doubletree by Hilton

(the frontage and space between Mill House and the hotel would be extended)

View east towards Mill House which would include a two storey extension

above and two storey extension to the side off the existing entrance area. The vehicular entrance to the car park is adjacent to that of the adjacent public

house

The vehicular entrance from Carholme Road to the site

View south towards the northern wing of Mill House across the car parks of

adjacent uses

View from Newland, Mill House is visible either side of Viking House