Agenda item

(Under the scheme of public participation, John Braithwaite (on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. G. A. Pedder), John Braithwaite, Anne Stelfox and David Howard addressed the Committee as objectors to the application.  George Mills, on behalf of the applicant, reiterated his support for the application.)

John Braithwaite addressed the Committee on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. G. A. Pedder who, he advised Members, lived in closest proximity to the proposed development.  They had not, at any stage, been assessed regarding any impact this would have on them and it was unclear how conclusions had been reached in this regard.  The construction would be a short distance from their property and of considerable height, wholly above the eaves level of their property.  The height and proximity of the building would dominate their home generally, with their living-room and bedrooms facing towards it.  The construction would block their views and affect their privacy.  The proposed development conflicted with Policy H19, which said that the conversion or adaptation of buildings to residential use would not be permitted unless criteria were met, one of these being in relation to there being no adverse effect on the amenity, which there would be for Mr. and Mrs. Pedder.

John Braithwaite addressed the Committee on behalf of the Civic Society and informed Members that the proposed development was inappropriate and in contravention of policy.  It did not improve the quality of the area and was not of a high standard of design.  Its form was massively out of context with Lancaster as a whole.  The building would have a continuous flat parapet, and would use materials which were alien to their surroundings, with garish colour-finishes.  For these, and other reasons, the construction would detrimentally affect the quality of the area.  The proposals offered poor landscaping.  The application conflicted with Policy H12 of the Local Plan and Policy E33, which reflected PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) and added to the quality of life.  The whole parapet to the facade of buildings would be lost.  The original part of the building would be overshadowed, as would the view along Caton Road.  The construction would damage the local scene.  It would be in conflict with national policy.  It did not constitute good planning and would result in a building of character which was poorer for visitors and residents.

Anne Stelfox addressed the Committee on behalf of the Civic Society and advised Members of concerns.  The Civic Society had produced an alternative scheme which would retain the local building in its entirety and reflect the style and size of local buildings, using traditional materials, in a varied roofscape.  The vista along Caton Road would be retained, rather than overshadowed.  Replacement shrubs would retain the feature visible on approach.  Detailed design drawings had been sent to the Case Officer and the applicant’s agents.  The Civic Society’s view was that the present scheme was not the only possibility and urged the Committee to refuse the application on the basis of its poor design and it being contrary to national and local planning policy.

David Howard addressed the Committee and informed Members that he was a Lancastrian and an architect.  Kingsway was a listed building.  Part of the site was adversely spoilt through poor design and decisions made at Committee.  There had been no indication as to how the outline application would be developed.  Upon removal of the roof, there was no indication as to how the building would be protected.  The proposed flats provided poor space, and the development had tenement-like walkways, with windows close to each other.  The ventilation shaft feature was ugly.  The development was bulging, brutal, monotonous, irrelevant, trendy in style, incongruous to the existing environment and a mockery.  He advised of design faults and urged that they be addressed, that the advice of reputable architects be sought and that the Committee refuse the application.

George Mills addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant, Worksharp (Lancaster) Ltd, and advised that the Civic Society design was such that no reputable builder would sign up to such a scheme.  The proposed development would be bathed in sunlight throughout the day and enjoy views across the city and Morecambe Bay.  Some apartments would enjoy views of the River Lune.  The development was sympathetic to the existing facade and celebrated an existence near to the river.  The design was enduring, with overall qualities that intended to give some scale, but not mimic the existing.  The apartments would be modern in form.  There would be a strong marriage between old and new.  The design was appropriate to the one-way system, with good sound insulation.  The proposals had been approved by both the City Council and English Heritage.

It was proposed by Councillor Chapman and seconded by Councillor Quinton:

“That the application be refused.”

Upon being put to the vote, 7 Members voted in favour of the proposition, 7 against, with 4 abstentions, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be lost.

It was then proposed by Councillor Sherlock and seconded by Councillor Charles:

“That the application be granted.”

Upon being put to the vote, 7 Members voted in favour of the proposition, 7 against, with 4 abstentions, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be lost.

It was then proposed by Councillor Budden and seconded by Councillor Greenall:

“That the application be deferred to allow Officers to discuss possible improvements to the scheme with the Developer.”

Upon being put to the vote, 12 Members voted for the proposition and 6 against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be deferred to allow Officers to discuss possible improvements to the scheme with the Developer.