Item No 6 (d)

Site: 301-303 Monks Road Lincoln Lincolnshire LN2 5LA

Application No: 2010/0521/F

Target Date: 3 September 2010

Agent: Mr Clive Booth

Applicant: AKS Food City Limited

Development: Installation of New Shop Front.

Background The application is for installation of a new shop front to No. 301-303 Monks Road. The application premises are located on the corner of Monks Road and Hartley Street. The shop is currently vacant, although it was previously occupied by „2nd Chance‟, a used furniture company and then by “Bed World”. Site Visit Undertaken on 15 June 2010 and 12 August 2010. Issues To assess the impact of the proposed development on visual amenity and residential amenity. Policies Referred to Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment Policy 29: Shopfronts Policy 34 : Design and Amenity Standards Lincoln Townscape Assessment Consultations Consultations were carried out in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement, adopted June 2006. Responses Mrs Anne Holliwell Brown

295 Monks Road Lincoln LN2 5LA

Petition Objecting

Highways & Planning

Lincolnshire County Council No objections

Mrs Krishna Sharma

175 Monks Road Lincoln LN2 5JN

Objection

Geoffrey Wilkinson

287 Monks Road Lincoln LN2 5JZ

Objection

Mr & Mrs A.Simons

3 Toronto Street Lincoln LN2 5NN

Objection

Mrs Anne Holliwell Brown

295 Monks Road Lincoln LN2 5LA

Objection

Mrs M J Winyard 327 Monks Road

Lincoln LN2 5LD

Objection

Abbey Neighbourhood History Group

53 Belmont Street Lincoln LN2 5LS

Objection

Consideration of Issues National Policy Context Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) PPS1 sets out the Government's overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. Para 36 states that development should be:

sustainable, durable and adaptable and make efficient and prudent use of resources;

respond to local context and create or reinforce local distinctiveness;

visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.

The proposal is contrary to PPS 1. The proposal does not respond to the local context nor does it create or reinforce local distinctiveness. The development is not visually attractive as a result of good architecture. Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5). A key feature of the PPS is its holistic approach to the historic environment. The elements of the historic environment that are worthy of consideration in planning matters are called „heritage assets‟. This term embraces all manner of features, including: buildings, parks and gardens, standing, buried and submerged

remains, areas, sites and landscapes, whether designated or not and whether or not capable of designation.

Policies HE7.5, HE9.5 and HE10 require attention to the extent to which the design of new development contributes positively to the character, distinctiveness and significance of the historic environment. A successful scheme will be one whose design has taken account of the following characteristics of the surroundings, where appropriate:

1. The significance of nearby assets and the contribution of their setting.

2. The general character and distinctiveness of the local buildings, spaces, public realm and the landscape.

3. Landmarks and other features that are key to a sense of place.

4. The diversity or uniformity in style, construction, materials, detailing, decoration and period of existing buildings and spaces.

5. The topography.

6. Views into and from the site and its surroundings.

7. Green landscaping.

8. The current and historic uses in the area and the urban grain. Some, or all of these factors may influence the scale, height, massing, alignment, materials and proposed use in any successful design. Some non-designated assets, such as Nos 301-303 Monks Road, are of heritage significance but not at a level that would pass the threshold for national designation. Such assets can, singularly and collectively, still make an important, positive contribution to the environment. The desirability of conserving them and the contribution their setting may make to their significance is a material consideration, but individually less of a priority than for designated assets or their equivalents. The level of response from neighbours is an indication of the contribution the shop has locally. I consider that the proposal is contrary to PPS 5. The proposal does not acknowledge the general character and distinctiveness of Monks Road. The proposal does not acknowledge the construction, materials, detailing, decoration and period style of No‟s 301-303 Monks Road.

Policy 29: Shopfronts This policy states that planning permission will be granted for new shop fronts or alterations to existing shop fronts where they:

are sympathetic in design and materials with the remainder of the building;

make satisfactory provision in the design for any suitable fascia signs or other advertising material;

do not involve the loss of a traditional shop front which warrants retention;

The proposal is contrary to Policy 29: Shopfronts, in that the proposal is not sympathetic in design with the remainder of the building, does not make satisfactory provision in the design for any suitable fascia signs or other advertising material, involves the loss of a traditional shop front which warrants

retention.

Policy 34: Design and Amenity Standards This policy states that planning permission will be granted for new buildings, extensions, alterations or refurbishment of existing buildings which, amongst other things, meet the following requirements:

the scale, massing, height, design, external appearance and facing materials to be used in the development must complement the architectural style and townscape character of the locality;

The proposal is contrary to Policy 34: Design and Amenity Standards in that the design to be used in the development does not complement the architectural style and townscape character of No‟s 301-303 Monks Road. Lincoln Townscape Assessment

The Lincoln Townscape Assessment is recognised in Lincoln‟s Sustainable Community Strategy, as a key evidence base used to “protect and enhance a high quality environment for use by existing and future communities”.

I have evaluated the proposal using information in the LTA, coming to the conclusion, in the context of all other policies, that it would adversely effect the character of the area. The LTA aids this process of evaluation by providing a context to the proposed changes whilst not making any value judgements in its own right. Design and Access Statement A Design and Access Statement has been submitted in support of the application, however, I do not consider that its preparation has had regard to Circular 01/06: Guidance on Changes to the Development Control System. The circular, says that statements should explain the design principles and concepts that have informed the development and how access issues have been dealt with. The statement fails to identify this property as a non-designated heritage asset and has failed to recognize the significance of the property both in terms of its physical appearance and its social context within the Monks Road area. Residential Amenity Letters of objection and a petition of 119 signatures have been received. The principle issue arising refer to:

City of Lincoln Local Plan commitment to retention of historic shopfronts

Loss of an historic shopfront that affords easy access

Lack of carparking will cause obstructions on Monks Road.

Late opening hours

Alcohol Licence is not suitable in a residential area.

Will cause illegal parking, noise pollution and antisocial behaviour

Deliveries will cause obstructions

Loss of local heritage

The Abbey Neighbourhood History Group has responded, that reiterate Local Plan Policy and concern over the alcohol licence and late opening hours. Six further letters of objection have been received and the comments correspond to those represented on the petition. Whilst I acknowledge the concern of residents with regard to opening hours the use of the premises is not changing and therefore I do not have any control over such matters. With regard to the sale of alcohol, this is dealt with under a separate licensing system and is not a planning consideration. That said, comments received during the preparation of The Lincoln Townscape Assessment (referred to at more length further on in this report), regarding the Bargain Booze shop within the „Arboretum Character Area‟ stressed that local communities are concerned about late night alcohol shops in the area. The comment was that „I dislike the bargain booze shop. A new use of shops but has had an effect on area and drink problems.‟ This reference will be referred to Licensing Committee for their information. The Highway Authority does not wish to object to the application or to apply any conditions. As such, I do not therefore consider that any objection on highway grounds relating to lack of carparking or deliveries could be sustained in planning terms. Visual Amenity The property is an intact example of an early Lincoln Equitable Co-Operative Industrial Society shop. Built in 1911, it had Groceries / Provisions section in the larger Eastern bay and an attached butchery in the smaller Western bay. Adjoining this was an attached manager‟s house. Whilst photographs from 1970 show a virtually intact physical appearance there has been a series of unfortunate alterations, that include rendering of the premises and painting of the stone detailing. However, it is none the less, a remarkable architectural survivor of the company. The elements of the historic environment that are worthy of consideration in planning matters are called „heritage assets‟. This term embraces all manner of features, including shopfronts. The difference between a heritage asset and other components of the environment is that a heritage asset holds meaning for society over and above its functional utility. It is this heritage significance that justifies a degree of protection in planning decisions.

The aim of the policies within the Government Guidance, PPS 5, is to conserve these assets, for the benefit of this and future generations. This is done by supporting their maintenance and by requiring that change to them is managed in ways that sustain and where appropriate enhances their heritage significance. Applications will have a greater likelihood of success and better decisions will be made when applicants assess and understand the particular nature of the significance of an asset, the extent of the asset‟s fabric to which the significance relates and the level of importance of that significance. Some non-designated

assets, such as this property, are of good local character and are of heritage significance but not at a level that would pass the threshold for national designation, ie: Listed or in a Conservation Area. Such assets can, singularly and collectively, make an important, positive contribution to the environment. The application has made no attempt to understand the significance of the property, particularly its façade fronting Monks Road, or its contribution that it makes as a non-designated heritage asset. The widespread local concern that the application has generated, make it abundantly clear that the local community recognise and value its worth. The Lincoln Townscape Assessment has also supported the judgement that the proposal would adversely effect the character of the area.

Conclusion The proposal is contrary to PPS 1, PPS 5, 29: Shopfronts, Policy 34: Design and Amenity Standards, and the Lincoln Townscape Assessment as the proposal does not respond to the local context nor does it create or reinforce local distinctiveness. The development is not visually attractive as a result of good architecture. The proposal does not acknowledge the general character and distinctiveness of Monks Road. The proposal does not acknowledge the diversity or uniformity in style, construction, materials, detailing, decoration and period of No‟s 301-303 Monks Road. The proposal is not sympathetic in design and materials with the remainder of the building, does not make satisfactory provision in the design for any suitable fascia signs or other advertising material, involves the loss of a traditional shop front which warrants retention. The scale, massing, height, design, external appearance and facing materials to be used in the development does not complement the architectural style and townscape character of No‟s 301-303 Monks Road. The proposal is contrary to Lincoln‟s Sustainable Community Strategy that identifies the Lincoln Townscape Assessment as a key evidence base used to protect and enhance a high quality environment for use by existing and future communities. The proposal does not respond to the local context nor does it create or reinforce local distinctiveness, as evidenced by the Lincoln Townscape Assessment.

Financial Implications None. Legal Implications None. Equality Implications There are no equality implications raised by this proposal which are not considered under other legislation.

Application Negotiated Either at Pre-Application or During Process of Application Yes. Application Determined Within Target Yes.

Recommendation Refuse

1. The proposal is contrary to PPS 1. The proposal does not respond to the local context nor does it create or reinforce local distinctiveness. The development is not visually attractive as a result of good architecture.

2. The proposal is contrary to PPS 5. The proposal does not acknowledge

the general character and distinctiveness of Monks Road. The proposal does not acknowledge the diversity or uniformity in style, construction, materials, detailing, decoration and period of No‟s 301-303 Monks Road.

3. The proposal is contrary to Policy 29: Shopfronts in that the proposal is

not sympathetic in design and materials with the remainder of the building, does not make satisfactory provision in the design for any suitable fascia signs or other advertising material, involves the loss of a traditional shop front which warrants retention.

4. The proposal is contrary to Policy 34: Design and Amenity Standards in

that the scale, massing, height, design, external appearance and facing materials to be used in the development does not complement the architectural style and townscape character of No‟s 301-303 Monks Road.

5. The proposal is contrary to Lincoln‟s Sustainable Community Strategy

that identifies the Lincoln Townscape Assessment as a key evidence base used to protect and enhance a high quality environment for use by existing and future communities. The proposal does not respond to the local context nor does it create or reinforce local distinctiveness, as evidenced by the Lincoln Townscape Assessment.

Report by: Head of Planning Services

Informative 1. Lincoln Townscape Assessment

Description: Renewal of shop fronts on corner of Monk‟s Road and Hartley Street. The building was built as shops by the Lincoln Equitable Cooperative Society Ltd. External changes include alterations to the existing (partly original) shop frontages, including reduction of height of stall risers; internal changes include the removal of internal walls. Lincoln Townscape Assessment Character Area Statement: Spa Street to Devon Street Other Relevant : Monks Road to Winn Street Milman Road to Frederick Street

Key relevant characteristics from Character Area Statements:

Coherent largely residential Late Victorian/Edwardian townscape

Corner buildings are larger in scale and more prominent – often marked out by gable ends facing the road whereas other buildings are ridgeline parallel to road.

Mainly single fronted properties

Vertical windows

Intricate small scale architectural detailing on properties (mainly in brick work)

Active frontages

Greater variety in size, architectural style and form of buildings along Monk‟s Road, as well as along the southern boundary of the area

Inactive frontage of building facing onto Hartley Street Review of Proposal:

Retains use of original shop premises

Changes incorporate use of some traditional decorative materials (e.g. panelled stallrisers)

Although proposals retain some of the structure and prominence of the external façade, changes to the shop front represent significant diversion from the overarching Late Victorian/Edwardian character of the area, and that of the prominent building itself:

o Loss of splayed doorway/entranceways o Redundant original fascia and addition of sub fascia, leading to

thick fascia of mid-late 20th century depth/width

o Reduction of stallriser height to shallow mid-late 20th century height

o Change in orientation of windows from vertical to more horizontal emphasis (due to low stallriser and additional fascia, loss of entranceways and removal of glazing bars)

o Replacement of wooden window frames with aluminium frames o Use of large paned windows as opposed to sliding sashes in

right hand side part of building again changing relationship between the two parts of the original building.

o Loss of small scale detailing in fenestration – reducing decorative elements of prominent corner building (n.b. these are not on the existing survey plans)

Changes to the position of the right hand shop front (which is currently slightly recessed) diminish the relationship between the two parts of the building - which remains reflected in the scale of the gable ends above.

Building up of windows and doorways, in particular that facing Hartley Street, reduces the activity of already inactive frontages – also limits loading and access to Monks Road only – already a busy and largely residential road. (n.b. these are not on the existing survey plans)

Opportunities: o Inactive façade facing Hartley Street could be made more active by the

addition of a shop window, and/or use for loading. This would remove potential traffic issues on monks Road during loading and unloading.

o Use existing parts of the shopfront as much remains preserved - fascias, doorways and fenestration - allowing for the original proportions of the building to be retained, and its original functions to be read.

o Maintain some form of relationship between the two parts of the building. This could be done both internally and externally. This would relate better to the existing and retained arrangement/scale of Dutch gables.

Proposed Plans

Internal view of former Butchery at No 301 Monks Road

West Elevation

East Elevation to Hartley Street

Former Butchery at No 301 Monks Road

Former Grocery at No 302-303 Monks Road

North Elevation facing Monks Road

Monks Pathway

HA

RT

LE

Y S

TR

EE

T

TO

RO

NT

O S

TR

EE

T

FR

ED

ER

ICK

ST

RE

ET

WA

LM

ER

ST

RE

ET

20

12

2

319

111

19

305

12

22

12

2

303

196289

2

14

2

287

1

190

13

23

279

12

2

180

Me

thod

ist

Chu

rch

Mo

nks R

oad

1

11

13

21

1

178

277

2

12

22

32

168

267

Site Plan

The Lincoln Equitable Co-Operative Industrial Society Ltd: Original Plans 21 April 1910

The Lincoln Equitable Co-Operative Industrial Society Ltd: Original Plans 21 April 1910