Item No 5(b)

Site: Land Bounded by Waterside South, Melville Street, Oxford Street, St.Mary's Street and Sincil Street, Lincoln

Application No: 2008/0641/O

Target Date:

Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Applicant: Lincolnshire Cooperative Ltd

Development: Demolition of the existing bus station, roof top car park, City Square Centre including retail units at 48 Sincil Street and fronting Waterside South, former Oxford Hall Hotel, no.s 18-23, 30A, 31 (plus various buildings/extensions to the rear) and 47 Sincil Street, no.s 2-3 Norman Street, the Station Store, pedestrian footbridge and Station Wall. Erection of a mixed use development (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and C3 uses and other ancillary uses), a new bus station and facilities building, multi storey car park, footbridge over railway lines and highway, infrastructure and public realm works and other associated works. (Revised Description) (Outline)

Background The application site forms a significant area of land to the south east of the City Centre and is known as Lindongate. Covering a site area of approximately 4.9 Hectares, the site is surrounded on all sides by existing roads, with Waterside South to the north, Pelham Bridge and Melville Street (A15) to the east and Oxford Street and St Mary‟s Street (A57) to the south. To the north the site is bounded by the River Witham, and to the south by the railway and the Grade II listed Lincoln Central Station. The western flank of the site is formed by Sincil Street, with Central Market and the main retail core of the City located further to the west. To the east beyond Melville Street and Pelham Bridge lies an extensive industrial area, including Siemens.

Currently the site comprises a number of differing uses, including the Co-op supermarket and City Square Centre, the Bus Station, the former Grand Hotel (Oxford Hall), as well as three car parks at Thornbridge (approximately 240 roof top spaces), St Mary‟s Street NCP (approximately 194 spaces) and the railway station (approximately 110 spaces). In addition, Sincil Street and Waterside South accommodate numerous commercial uses, predominantly made up of independent retail units.

The site benefits from pedestrian linkages to the existing retail core to the west, through both Cornhill and Waterside South. Pedestrian flows from the east access the site either through the existing bus station or across the footbridge over Broadgate at the north eastern edge of the site, whilst to the south there is direct access from Sincil Bank across the existing railway footbridge, with heavy footfall across St Mary‟s Street from Central Station. The southern portion of the

site is separated from the main retail core by the highways gyratory formed by Norman Street and Oxford Street, with the former Grand Hotel building, Oxford Hall, sitting in the centre of the gyratory.

The majority of the site lies within the Cathedral and City Centre Conservation Area No.1, with the exception of Oxford Street which is excluded. The proposal requires substantial

The application site outlined in red

demolition and therefore there is an accompanying Conservation Area Consent application for demolition which is considered separately on your agenda (2011/1232/CAC) which covers this in more detail. A Conservation Area Consent application was submitted with the original application, however given the changes to the proposal this was withdrawn and a further application submitted. The properties and other areas to be demolished are depicted in light grey on the above plan, however in detail are: City Square Centre plus retail units at 48 Sincil Street and fronting Waterside South Bus Station and roof top car park Two storey butchery preparation building (part of Pepperdines Butchers) at rear of

24 Sincil Street Two storey brick warehouse known as Watson‟s Yard (at rear of 25-27 Sincil Street) Substantial part of the rear of 32 Sincil Street (Savers) including the modern single

storey rear extension Substantial part of the rear of 33 Sincil Street including older single storey rear

outbuildings. No 30a Sincil Street No. 31 Sincil Street Nos. 2-3 Norman Street Former Grand Hotel (Oxford Hall) - Although a separate application to demolish this

building is currently under consideration and this is therefore likely to brought forward in advance of the proposals)

No. 47 Sincil Street Nos. 18-23 Sincil Street Station Wall, Station Store and other associated buildings

In addition, the impact on the Grade II listed Lincoln Central Station forms a separate application for consideration on your agenda (2011/1231/LBC). Planning History and Background to the Proposals The application site and surrounding area has an extensive planning history. Of particular relevance is the outline planning permission which was granted in December 1995 (LF31/0090/92) for the erection of a shopping centre, decked car parking, bus station and hotel at land comprising the City Bus Station, Co-op Store, the former Lincs Standard Group site and properties on Sincil and adjacent Car Parks. More recently, in June 2008 an application was submitted on behalf of Modus Eastern (Lincoln) and Lincolnshire Co-operative for the development of a mixed use scheme at the site. After the application was lodged, a number of responses were received from statutory consultees and third parties that gave rise to the need for revisions to the scheme, in particular English Heritage, Opun and the Environment Agency, whilst Modus also ceased trading. As a result, the Lincolnshire Co-operative are now the sole applicants and have taken forward and amended the scheme in an effort to take into account the views expressed by consultees. The amendments made to the scheme submitted in 2008 resulted in the need for updated information to be submitted. The main revisions include a reduction in scale (Blocks A, B and C) and the revised siting (Blocks D and E) of some of the blocks proposed, amendments to the layout of the new bus station and the incorporation of a new realigned route over the railway in the form of new pedestrian footbridge. In addition to the design revisions, the originally submitted Outline scheme required consideration of the layout and scale of the proposal. The amended scheme has, however, removed these elements from consideration.

The planning application has, however, continued running since 2008 and the amendments to the scheme, together with the remaining information relevant from the originally submitted application, form the development before you for your consideration. The proposal is, therefore, for Outline Consent, with access to be considered as part of the scheme and all other matters reserved. Indicative layout and scale plans have, however, been submitted to assist in the determination process, and the application proposes to approve scale parameters for all of the buildings proposed. The proposal comprises a mixed use development of: 29, 361 square metres to 34, 248 square metres Gross External Area (GEA) of

Class A1/A2 retail floorspace; 3052 square metres to 3902 square metres (GEA) of Class A3 to A5 retail

floorspace; 10 to 21 residential apartments; New Passenger Transport Interchange to include 13 bays and 6/7 bus layover

spaces with ancillary facilities; 850 to 900 car parking spaces (680 to 720 short stay, 20 residential and up to 150

long stay spaces) and; The provision of a new, re-positioned footbridge over the railway line

The development takes the form of a block structure incorporating five main blocks in addition to the new Passenger Transport Interchange (PTI) and pedestrian footbridge. Block A is the largest of the 5 blocks and is located in the position of the existing bus station, and has two commercial scale floors of retail with 3 floors of parking above. The upper floors of the northern end of Block A would accommodate the residential units proposed as part of the scheme, whilst its frontages would face Waterside South and the newly formed River Street with servicing accessed from the rear, off Melville Street. The parking element of this block would be linked by a vehicular bridge into Block E which is at the south-east corner of the site. This would be the dedicated multi-storey car park block built over 5 floors and accessed from both the reconfigured Norman Street and

Oxford Street. Shopmobility and Dial-a-ride would also be accommodated at the ground floor of this block. Block B to the north-west of the site would be positioned at the rear of the existing shop units on Sincil Street, wrapping around onto Sincil Street and replacing the 3 units at the northern end. This block is proposed as two commercial storeys in retail use which would front both the new River Street and Sincil Lane, as well as Waterside South. Block C is also a retail block being two commercial storeys in height, fronting Sincil Lane, River Street and Norman Place as well as providing a replacement retail unit for 30A and 31 Sincil Street which would be demolished. Block D is 3 commercial storeys tall and at the south-west corner of the site will form the proposed anchor department store and will have frontages to all the surrounding streets. The positioning of Block D would necessitate the demolition of 18 – 23 Sincil Street, as well as 2-3 Norman Street. As part of the scheme there will be also be alterations to the Highway layout which principally includes the realignment of Norman Street, Oxford Street and St Mary‟s Street. This would also facilitate an amendment to the junction at the confluence of these three Roads, which would replace the current circulation system. At the southern end of the site the new PTI will provide access to the railway station, taxi services, cycle parking, associated offices, information desk, ticket office and public toilets. There will be a herringbone style layout for the buses in operation with a large concourse which has a canopy at the southern end. To the east is an additional bus layover area for 7 buses. The new PTI also links into the provision of a new, re-positioned footbridge over the railway line to replace the existing bridge. This new footbridge is positioned further to the west with a lift at each end. A wide uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is also proposed on St Mary‟s Street to provide a gateway to the retail core from both the interchange and the pedestrian areas to the south. Site Visit Numerous site visits have been undertaken by Officers, most recently 23rd February 2012 Issues

Principle of the redevelopment of the site in relation to planning and other relevant policy

The findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment

Indicative layout, scale parameters and visual impact

Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and justification for the demolition

Retail and economic impact on the City Centre

Highways and the quantum of parking

Flood risk and surface water drainage

Sustainability

Biodiversity and ecology

Noise, air quality and residential amenity

Archaeology and contaminated land

Policies Referred to This section of the report sets out the planning policies, together with other relevant guidance, that are relevant to the consideration of this application. Although in list format, a more detailed summary of the Policies and other guidance is appended to the report (Appendix One), and should be considered in conjunction with the report. In addition, a full assessment of the principle of the development in respect of the emerging polices of the Core Strategy within the Central Lincolnshire Local Development Framework, together with the findings of the draft central Lincolnshire City and Town Centre study November 2011, has been provided by the Central Lincolnshire Joint Planning Unit and can be found at Appendix Two. National Planning Policy Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS 1) Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS 3) Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS 4) Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS 5) Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS 9) Planning Policy Guidance Note13: Transport (PPG 13) Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (PPS 23) Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS 25) Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Regional Planning Policy East Midlands Regional Plan (EMRP) - The Localism Bill proposes to formally

remove the Regional Plan. The evidence base will remain relevant but members may wish to consider the weight they give to the Regional Plan policies.

Local Planning Policy Policy 1 – Location of Developments Attracting Large Numbers of People Policy 6 – Public Transport Facilities Policy 8B – Parking and servicing provision in Central Lincoln Policy 8C – Management Regimes for publicly available car parks Policy 18 – Development in Mixed-Use Areas Policy 34 – Design and Amenity Standards Policy 35 – Design of New Residential Areas Policy 41 – Energy Efficiency Policy 55 – “Long” views into and out of the City Policy 56A – New Housing (self contained) Policy 72A – Shopping Streets Policy 72B – Major Retailing Provision in the Central Shopping Core and Edge-of-

Centre Locations Supplementary Planning Guidance Planning Advice Note 21: Affordable Housing Green Design in Planning Supplementary Planning Guidance

Other Local Policy and Relevant Documents The Emerging Central Lincolnshire Local Development Framework

Lincoln Policy Area Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Central Lincolnshire Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

Retail and Town Centre Study (GVA Grimley, 2007) and the Draft Central

Lincolnshire City and Town Centre Study (WYG, 2011) City Centre Masterplan – Linking Lincoln: Enquiry by Design (and subsequent City

Centre and Lindongate Workshop Report) The Lincoln Townscape Assessment

Central Government Autumn Budget Statement

Ministerial Statement :Planning for Growth

City of Lincoln Strategic Priorities

Reduce poverty and disadvantage

Seek to increase the supply of affordable housing to buy or rent

Reduce Lincoln‟s carbon footprint Responses English Heritage (two letters received)

East Midlands Region 44 Derngate NORTHAMPTON NN1 1HU

Objection

Mrs Pepperdine Pepperdine Butchers 24 Sincil Street Lincoln Lincolnshire LN5 7ET

Comments

Highways Agency

Regional Manager East Midlands 5 Broadway Broad Street Birmingham B15 1BL

No Objections

Stewart Squires Lincolnshire Historic

Buildings Committee Jew Court Steep Hill Lincoln LN2 1LS

Comments

Mr.James Vickers

7 Tavern Way Lincoln LN139NY

Support

Lincoln Civic Trust

St Mary`s Guildhall 385 High Street Lincoln LN5 7RY

Support

East Midlands Development Agency

Head of Urban Policy & Planning East Midlands Development Agency Apex Court City Link Nottingham NG2 4LA

Support

Environment Agency

Waterside House Waterside North Lincoln LN2 5HA

No objections

Barry Reeves Sincil Street Traders

44 Sincil Street Lincoln Lincolnshire LN5 7ET

Objection

Mr R. Curtis Curtis of Lincoln

Long Leys Road Lincoln LN1 1DX

Objection

Kelly Swain Age Concern England

C/O Real Estate Consultancy Ltd 14 Dover Street London W1S 4LW

Objection

Nicola Jones Sustrans

East Midlands The Green Haddington Lincoln LN5 9EF

Objection

Lincolnshire Historic Buildings Committee

Cherry Tree House 28 Main Street Scothern LN2 2UW

Comments

Cllr. Sandra Gratrick

1 Higson Road Lincoln LN1 3XB

Comments

Jon How 53 Richmond Road

Lincoln LN1 1LH

Comments

Mr T Rivero Network Rail Comments Highways & Planning

Lincolnshire County Council

Comments

Alan Waddington Rail Futures,

25 Viking Way Metheringham LN4 3DW

Comments

Owner/Occupier Oxfam

38 Sincil Street Lincoln Lincolnshire LN5 7ET

Comments

Chris Barnard chris@optimapro.gr Comments Sylvia Turner Montagu Evans (on behalf of Standard Life)

38 Arboretum Avenue Lincoln LN2 5JE Mr J Stephenson Montagu Evans Clarges House 6 – 12 Clarges Street London W1J 8HB

Comments Objection

Anglian Water

Developer Services (Marketing and Planning) Anglian Water P O Box 495 Huntingdon PE29 6YY

Comments

Capital and Regional (owners of the Waterside Shopping Centre) Lincolnshire Police

Mr A Haughey Ca‟do‟ro Building 45 Gordon Street Glasgow Police Headquarters PO Box 999 Lincoln

Support No objections

British Waterways

Peel's Wharf Lichfield Street Tamworth B78 3QZ

Comments

Consideration of Issues Principle of the Redevelopment of the Site in Relation to Planning and Other Relevant Policy Planning Policy National Planning Policy is expressed through adopted Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance, and PPS 1 provides the Government‟s over arching objectives for the planning system. This policy strongly encourages the redevelopment of brownfield/previously developed sites such as Lindongate, emphasising the benefits of developing such land within an established urban area which has good accessibility and links to public transport. Specifically, the proposed redevelopment of the site promotes the more efficient use of land through higher density, mixed use development and the use of suitably located previously developed land and buildings, therefore ensuring it accords with the principles of sustainable development as outlined within PPS1. This retail-led regeneration of the area would also accord with Government‟s aspiration within PPS 1 to promote a strong, stable and productive economy that aims to bring jobs and prosperity for all (para. 23). PPS 1 goes on to purport the benefits of promoting urban regeneration to improve the wellbeing of communities, improve facilities, promote high quality and safe development and create new opportunities for the people living in those locations (para.27). In relation to the principle of housing on the site, PPS 3 states that housing developments should be located in suitable areas which offer a good range of community facilities and access to jobs, key services and infrastructure, such as the City Centre. In addition, the provision of housing on the site would also contribute to the five year housing land supply and importantly the development could provide on site affordable housing, depending on the number of units brought forward at reserved matters stage. In terms of specific retail policy, PPS 4 reinforces the Governments application of the „town centre first‟ principle to retail and all other developments for town centre uses, stating that proposals for retail and town centre uses should be located in an existing centre. More specifically, PPS 4 encourages the promotion of competitive town centre environments and the provision of consumer choice through a range of means including identifying sites in the centre capable of accommodating larger format developments. In broader terms, the emerging Government position as expressed through the draft NPPF, the Autumn Budget Statement and other ministerial statements place further emphasis on the benefits of development and growth for the economy and the need for the planning system to facilitate development. The redevelopment of the site, for the mix of uses proposed, therefore fully accords with the aspirations set out in national planning policy and current Government statements. In regional terms, the East Midlands Regional Plan mirrors the national perspective in encouraging the need for continued and varied employment development opportunities to enhance competitiveness, prosperity and attractiveness to increase investment. Furthermore, policies within the plan prioritise central Lincoln as the most appropriate location for new development, emphasising its proximity to local facilities and public transport. The redevelopment of the site therefore also accords with the policy emphasis in the Regional Plan. In terms of the City of Lincoln Local Plan, one of the strategic aims of the Plan is to direct development which will attract large numbers of people to the most accessible locations

within the urban area, and which have access to a choice of transport options, such as the City Centre. More specifically, the site is within the Central Mixed Use Area and Policy 18 directs a broad range of uses to the area including retail, restaurants and cafes and residential uses, all of which are proposed as part of the development in accordance with the aims of the policy. In addition, the application site is within the Central Shopping Core which the Local Plan states will remain the main focus of comparison shopping and an improved range of convenience goods shops will also be encouraged in and around this area. To emphasise this objective, Policy 72B states that planning permission will be granted for major new retail development within the Centre Shopping Core. The principle of the development in the form and including the uses proposed therefore accords with Local Plan Policy in directing such development to the Central Mixed Use Area and Central Shopping Core. The Emerging Core Strategy of the Central Lincolnshire Local Development Framework (LDF) The emerging policies of the Core Strategy promote a sustainable growth strategy for Central Lincolnshire that plans to deliver an uplift in the levels of growth beyond that achieved historically in the area, to provide homes and jobs in line with identified needs, regenerate places and communities, and support necessary improvements to facilities, services and infrastructure. Lincoln will be the principal focus for this growth and the city centre is both a key driver for growth and essential to provide services to support the current and future population. Lincoln‟s City Centre is the principal centre for retailing and other associated uses within Central Lincolnshire and with the high levels of growth being promoted for Lincoln and the wider area through the emerging policies of the Core Strategy, it is essential that appropriate opportunities are realised that will enable it to both maintain its role as a key driver for growth and provider of services to support the current and future population. Lindongate provides the key opportunity at the present time to enhance the city centre‟s retail offer and the creation of a single transport interchange should contribute to encouraging the shift towards more sustainable modes of transport, and is therefore supported within the emerging LDF. Linking Lincoln: The City Centre Masterplan As Members will be aware, the City Centre Masterplan (CCMP) seeks to provide an over arching vision for the longer term development of the City Centre and its immediate surrounding area. This identifies a number of key „Intervention Sites‟ where briefs have been proposed and both Lindongate (Site C5) and the Station Crossing (Site C6) were identified as such sites. In relation to Lindongate, the plan proposed a major retail led redevelopment scheme and multi modal transport hub to the south of the site. The development of this area formed a key part of the retail strategy within the Masterplan, the aim being for the proposal to facilitate a stronger „retail loop‟ and east-west movement pattern between the main retail area of High Street and this part of the City Centre. In conjunction with the Lindongate proposals, the brief for the Station Crossing proposed major public realm improvements in this location and a new pedestrian bridge over the railway, with the aim of improving north-south linkages and strengthening this gateway into the City Centre from the south and the new multi modal transport hub.

It is considered therefore that the principle of a retail led mixed use redevelopment in this location is supported by the City Centre Masterplan, however a more detailed assessment of how the scheme responds to the principles of the Masterplan is contained later within this report. The Council‟s Strategic Priorities The development, with the aid of suitable planning conditions where necessary, would also ensure that the proposal contributes to the adopted strategic priority of the Council to address poverty and disadvantage, particularly through the provision of additional jobs in the retail and construction sectors which would be created and prioritised for local people. In general terms, the proposal would potentially secure substantial inward investment and regeneration, creating a host of new opportunities for the people within the immediate locality and the City, specifically improving quality of life. A condition would also be proposed to encourage sustainable construction methods and waste disposal, whilst a reduction in carbon footprint is promoted for each element of the development. This would help contribute to the strategic priority of reducing the City‟s carbon footprint, whilst to a lesser extent the residential element proposed could also contribute to the aim of improving the supply of affordable housing. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is in accordance with the range of relevant national, regional and local policy and guidance in terms of its principle and the mix of uses proposed. In addition, Members should also note that the principle of the redevelopment of the Lindongate site has previously been accepted through the previous planning permission for development of the site for a shopping centre, decked car parking, bus station and hotel. Environmental Impact Assessment The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) allows a systematic and structured assessment of the potential effects of a development on the environment which should then be taken into account in the decision making process. It aims to ensure that any significant effects arising from a development are systematically identified, assessed and presented to help Local Planning Authorities, statutory consultees and other key stakeholders in their understanding of the impacts arising from development. The assessment is undertaken through the submission of an Environment Statement (ES) which addresses a number of environmental issues, the scope of which should be agreed by the Local Planning Authority. In accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations, this development is considered, due to its scale, nature and location, to warrant the consideration of its environmental impact through this process. When the application was first lodged in 2008, an ES was submitted for consideration. Since this time, discussions with a range of stakeholders have led to a number of changes to the scheme and an ES Addendum (2011) has been prepared to provide details of the environmental effects arising from those changes. This covers the following chapters: - Socio-Economic Townscape & Visual Archaeology Ecology & Nature Conservation Transport Water Resources Air Quality

Noise Waste Land Quality Infrastructure Cumulative Effects

Both the original ES and subsequent ES Addendum have been independently assessed by a specialist consultant to establish their compliance with the regulations, specifically in relation to the topics investigated and the method by which these topics were assessed. It was concluded, subject to some minor updating of the submitted details which has now been submitted, that the scope and methods adopted within both assessments meet the necessary requirements as prescribed within the regulations. In addition to the legal compliance, the individual chapters have been the subject of external and internal consultation with relevant specialists to ensure the accuracy of the conclusions which have been reached, and no negative responses have been received from consultees in relation to these findings. The ES identifies beneficial impacts on the environment, specifically in relation to socio-economic impacts through the creation of over 2000 local jobs and improved retail facilities. The majority of the remaining impacts are moderate to neutral, however some minor negative residual effects are identified, such as a slight increase in noise levels as well as the amount of construction waste produced as a result of the development. These are not, however, significant particularly when balanced against the significant beneficial environmental effects identified in relation to the proposals. In addition, a range of mitigation and environmental enhancement measures have been identified throughout the process which are capable of forming planning conditions or being included in a Section106 Legal Agreement in relation to the development. These conditions, such as the provision of an on site waste management plan, and draft Section 106 Heads of Terms are listed at the end of the report. The relationships between the effects identified on the site do not give rise to the need for additional mitigation measures and there are no cumulative effects arising when considered with other development or proposals in the surrounding area. It is therefore considered that the EIA is fully compliant with the relevant regulations in terms of its scope, content and methodology, and demonstrates that the proposal gives rise to significant positive environmental impacts. Although some negative impacts have been identified, it has been demonstrated that these can be adequately mitigated and is therefore acceptable. Indicative Layout, Scale Parameters and Visual Impact Indicative Layout

The development has been divided into five blocks defined by the positioning of key routes in and around the site, the site being dissected on a north-south and east-west basis. From the north the newly created River Street runs southwards from Waterside South to the centre of the site where the repositioned Norman Street connects it to Oxford Street. The site is divided into two blocks to the east (Blocks A and E) and three blocks to the west (Blocks B, C and D). On an east-west alignment the newly created Norman Place runs from Sincil Street connecting with the top of the relocated Norman Street and through to Melville Street, leaving blocks D and E to the south and A, B and C to the north. The PTI is located at the southern end of the application site, immediately adjacent the railway line, to provide a new multi-modal transport hub and create a new gateway to the City. The block structure has been designed to create a loop for retail movement between the High Street, Cornhill and Sincil Street providing active frontages along main pedestrian routes, and increased connectivity with the City Centre as a whole. To facilitate this, the department store is proposed to the south of the scheme to stimulate these movements. New pedestrianised shopping streets are created, significantly improving the permeability and legibility of the area and also improving the townscape quality of the site. The new north-south street, River Street, and two new east-west streets, Sincil Lane and Norman Place, provide improved connectivity between Waterside South and Sincil Street/Cornhill and the wider City Centre to the west.

Pedestrian access will also be improved between Lincoln Central Station and the proposed new mixed-use blocks via the improved station forecourt and pedestrian crossing on St. Mary‟s Street. Direct pedestrian access will also be provided from the railway station to the new bus station providing an integrated transport interchange. The

existing pedestrian footbridge from St. Mary‟s Street to Tentercroft Street to the south will be removed and a new footbridge provided adjacent to Lincoln Central Station. This will link directly to both the bus and rail station and provide a more direct link via the new St. Mary‟s Street crossing point to Sincil Street and the existing and proposed shopping facilities. Pedestrian crossing points will also be provided across the reconfigured Norman Street linking Blocks C and D to Block E.

In principle, the layout has therefore responded to its setting in design terms, creating a network of new streets and secondary retail loop offering increased connectivity to, and accessibility within, the City Centre. Assessment in Relation to the City Centre Masterplan (CCMP) A formal objection has been received from English Heritage partly relating to the layout of the proposal and specifically how it corresponds with the CCMP. Their main concerns are the positioning of Block D resulting in a wide, undefined St. Mary‟s Street without sufficient enclosure, reinforcing north-south severance and necessitating the demolition of a number of buildings. They also consider the realignment of Norman Street to be outdated and unsatisfactory. Their concerns also relate to the submitted layout resulting in the need to demolish some of the buildings, and that there are possible design iterations which could result in much less demolition. As Members may be aware, the original Masterplan brief for Lindongate detailed a department store with a much smaller footprint, the retention of Norman Street as a through route and an „on street‟ bus station. Such briefs were only designed to demonstrate one way these sites could be developed and were not therefore a blue print which had to be adhered to. It should be noted that the CCMP does not constitute adopted planning policy or supplementary planning guidance, however does form adopted Council policy and provides a collaborative vision for development proposals coming forward within the City Centre, and therefore needs to form part of the consideration. Many of the key principles set out in the Masterplan have however been taken into account in developing the current proposals for Lindongate. In particular the Masterplan envisaged a retail led mixed-use scheme with a variety of retail unit sizes, integrated car parking, a new multi-modal transport hub close to the railway station as well as improved

pedestrian links across the railway line to the south. The CCMP has also specifically guided the layout of the proposed development, however the proposals do show some slight deviance from it which needs to be taken in the context of the aims of the Plan.

In terms of the pattern of development envisaged within the Masterplan, the principal of removing Nos. 30a and 31 Sincil Street was accepted to link any new development to both Sincil Street and the wider City Centre to the west. In addition, subsequent to the production of the Masterplan, a further workshop was held in January 2007 to revisit the principles established by the original Masterplan, but which also specifically focused on the emerging plans for Lindongate at that time. The original design brief was further revised as a result and is shown adjacent. As part of this process, the need for the

demolition of some of the corner buildings on Sincil Street/Norman Street was accepted within the revised layout proposed. Notwithstanding this the applicant has followed the guiding principles of the original Masterplan through the retention of Nos. 18-23 Sincil Street, and several iterations have been explored to accommodate these existing buildings. I am satisfied that the applicant has successfully demonstrated, however, that this block cannot be retained whilst still providing a workable bus station and department store. The space required by the bus station, which provides the minimum requirements of the principal bus operator and the Highway Authority, has pushed the alignment of St. Mary's Street northwards which in turn pushes Block D - the department store - northwards and results in the realignment of Norman Place and the need to demolish Nos. 18-23 Sincil Street, as well as 2-3 Norman Street. As part of their objection English Heritage has a specific concern that the location of the Department store and proposed PTI results in a wide, undefined St. Mary‟s Street, increasing north-south pedestrian severance. As addressed in the Retail section later in this report a need has been demonstrated for larger retail units in the City Centre. Such units will be the main economic drivers of the scheme and will require the support of an „anchor store‟ which would be the department store. Due to the specific requirements of modern retailers such retail units need to meet strict parameters in terms of their footprint. The provision of a smaller unit would not attract the required department store operator which would result in the viability of the rest of the scheme being critically undermined, and there is a consequential need for the re-alignment of St. Mary‟s Street and Norman Street as a result. In addition, the CCMP envisaged an on-street bus facility and the retention of the existing Station Wall. This arrangement however fails to meet the requirements of the Highway Authority, bus operator and, as stated above, the potential anchor store operator given the footprint required for this block. The development therefore proposes a dedicated bus

station with concourse and an anchor store with a footprint larger than envisaged within the CCMP. The proposal in this form does, however, still respond to the need for a degree of enclosure by the planting of a substantial row of trees along the southern side of St. Mary‟s Street. It is considered these trees together with the southern elevation of the department store will create an acceptable level of enclosure to the street. Whilst St. Mary‟s Street is proposed in a wider form than conceived as part of the Masterplan, the development includes a wide, uncontrolled pedestrian crossing at the western end of the site together with a vastly improved and realigned pedestrian footbridge over the railway line. It is considered that this will improve the existing situation with the current route from the south into the City Centre appearing unclear and undefined. In addition, both the pedestrian crossing and improved footbridge form a key element of the design brief for the Station crossing. It has therefore been successfully demonstrated that the mix of units in the layout proposed is necessary to create a successful retail destination which assimilates with the existing city centre in accordance with the aspirations of the CCMP. The demolitions including the loss of Nos. 18-23 Sincil Street and the realignment of Norman Place are accepted as necessary to ensure the delivery of the critically important, appropriately sized department store and bus station within this mixed use scheme. This layout will therefore deliver the overarching principles of the CCMP in achieving the retail led regeneration of this part of the City centre. A full assessment of all the demolitions proposed as part of the redevelopment is included later in this report. Indicative Scale Parameters and Associated Visual Impact Although scale is not for consideration as part of the Outline application, the scheme includes scale parameters which allow some degree of deviation in the built form of the blocks, both horizontally and vertically. The degree of deviation varies between the blocks, and Members need to consider the impact of the proposal at both the lower and upper scale parameters which would be set by a planning condition on any approval. Appendix Three: Scale Parameter Plan illustrates in detail the upper and lower limits of deviation which would be approved subject to permission being granted. In addition, the illustrative computer generated images of the proposed blocks represent the mid way point between the parameters and also serve to illustrate a likely scale of development. These images also form part of the report. Objections have been received in relation to the scale of the proposed development from English Heritage, the Lincolnshire Historic Buildings Committee and Curtis of Lincoln as shown at appendix 5. These principally relate to the impact of the scheme on views of the Cathedral and historic hillside and the impact of the scale of Blocks E and A on Pelham Bridge, Melville Street and Broadgate. In addition, English Heritage considers the juxtaposition between the proposal and the existing scale of building within the locality to be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As part of the revised details submitted in 2011, the scale of the blocks has been substantially reduced from that proposed as part of the original proposal, and this has been acknowledged by English Heritage. The blocks would still, however, represent relatively large structures and the Local Planning Authority raised further concerns in relation to the scale of Blocks A and E as submitted in the revised scheme, particularly regarding their impact on longer views towards the Cathedral and historic hillside. Further negotiations have therefore resulted in the maximum vertical height parameter being reduced by 2m from Block A and 0.4m on the western side and 3m on the eastern side of Block E.

In terms of Sincil Street, this displays a modest scale of two and three storey buildings and lies on a route which provides views to the Cathedral. The new development at the northern end of Sincil Street, as well as development replacing 30a and 31 Sincil Street, is proposed to a scale commensurate to the existing scale present along the Sincil Street frontage and the views along here would be unaffected. To the rear of Sincil Street, the massing of Blocks B and C has been reduced by between 2 and 3 storeys since the original submission, and now successfully responds to the more domestic scale of the Street. Blocks B and C are set back 30 to 40 metres from the Sincil Street frontage, and this ensures that they will not be visible from the street, apart from when looking along the opening at the new Sincil Lane where the blocks will compliment the established scale of development here (CGI shown below). Similarly, Block A would be some 50 – 70m beyond Sincil Street and would not be seen from this view point, Block A only coming into view when standing further back from Cornhill looking down Sincil Lane, and would sit comfortably within this view.

Indicative CGI view from Cornhill towards Sincil Lane

The height of Block D, the new department store, reflects its corner location, allowing a focal building to be introduced fronting Oxford Street and St. Mary's Street, whilst providing an improved sense of enclosure to this part of the street. This building also needs to be of sufficient scale to form a landmark building,

given its location adjacent to a proposed new gateway into the City Centre from the multi modal transport hub, whilst it also meets the requirements of the likely operators in terms of size and overall floor space, a critical part of the scheme, which justifies its scale. Blocks A and E would front Pelham Bridge and Melville Street and would be of significant scale, however this route forms a wide, heavily used arterial road within the highway network and therefore is divorced from the vibrant pedestrianised nature of other areas further to the west such as High Street and Sincil Street. Buildings which front this Road should therefore respond to this context in scale terms and there are examples of large, multi storey buildings adjacent to this Road, such as Thorngate House and the Siemens building, as well as the existing buildings on the site which themselves are of a notable scale and massing. Given the substantial width and principle nature of the route, development which abuts it should be of a significant scale, provided however that the longer views of the hillside are not unduly compromised.

Photograph taken from a similar viewpoint as the above CGI

The applicants have therefore submitted a wireframe visual shown at the maximum parameters, taken from Pelham Bridge as it crosses the railway, to demonstrate the impact of the scale of Blocks A, D and E on the view towards the Cathedral and hillside. This visual has also been updated given the reduction in height of these blocks and demonstrates that whilst some of the hillside would be obscured, a clear view of the Cathedral would be maintained with some visibility of the spire of St Swithins Church now retained as result of the amendments secured. It is therefore considered that the scale of these blocks would be appropriate given their location and the blocks would not unacceptably harm views towards the historic hillside.

Other Views Affected and Associated Visual Impact The site is located on low lying land and therefore a number of short range views are available from the streets and spaces immediately surrounding the site, with medium range views available from the south (Sincil Bank), north (Castle, Cathedral Tower, Medieval Bishops Palace, the grounds of St. Michael on the Mount and Temple Gardens)

Wireframe visual at maximum extent detailing the impact of the development when viewed from Pelham Bridge

Indicative view adjacent to Block E looking north, with Block A beyond

and north-east (Lindum Terrace). From the east, medium range views are limited due to the industrial area, whilst views from the west are screened by intervening development. In terms of long range views, a clear view is available from South Common, however from Canwick in the south and Greetwell Road in the east the site is screened from view. A combination of topography and intervening development and vegetation means there are no clear long range views from elsewhere. A detailed analysis of the impact of these key views has been incorporated within the Townscape and Visual Chapter of the ES and ES addendum, together with a townscape analysis which has been carried out to understand the role of views towards the Cathedral from within the Conservation Area. The analysis states that due to the topography of Lincoln and the density of development within the City Centre, full, uninterrupted views of the Cathedral are not a significant feature in and around the site. Rather, the characteristic views of the Cathedral from within this part of the City Centre are glimpsed views only, with the rest of the Cathedral obscured by intervening development. Close range, uninterrupted views which have been identified as affected would be from the existing Thornbridge Car Park, the St Mary‟s Street Car Park and Oxford Street. The effect of the development on these views should be considered against the very limited sensitivity of the view point location and the wider benefits the development would introduce to the townscape in these locations.

Of particular concern to English Heritage is the impact of the proposal on the medium range views of the Cathedral from both Tentercroft Street and longer views from Sincil Dyke. Both views are captured as significant within the CCMP, with the uninterrupted view walking along Sincil Dyke used directly to inform the principles of the plan. The view from Tentercroft Street, from the bridge over Sincil Dyke, is specifically covered within the ES, and illustrates that only the eastern end of the Cathedral would be screened and the view would still contain the important South Transept including the Bishops Eye, Central Tower and the two Western Towers, as well as the Castle and the majority of the historic hillside. In addition, the wider views down Sincil Dyke are also covered and this again illustrates that this important view would not be unduly affected, only being affected as you approach, and after you have crossed, Tentercroft Street, however again this would only be the eastern side of the Cathedral.

Existing view looking north from Oxford Street

Any loss or partial loss of view should also be balanced against the new views which would be created, notably across the new bridge over the railway. This would show the Cathedral in full, as well as St Swithins Spire and the historic hillside and given that this would provide the main access to the City Centre from the south would become a heavily used route and an iconic view. In addition, views of the Cathedral and St Swithins Spire would be created from the newly formed River Street, and from within the new blocks themselves in particular from the upper floors of Block A facing Waterside South. It is considered that the introduction of these views would offset any partial loss of view as stated from areas such as Tentercroft Street and Oxford Street.

Wireframe visuals at maximum extent (outlined in blue in the background) from both Tentercroft Street bridge and Queen Street pedestrian bridge, Sincil Bank

It has therefore been demonstrated that the more extensive views of the Cathedral and hillside are not unduly affected, and where they are impacted upon this is from the lesser quality townscape to the south-west of the site. The views from these locations are not sensitive views of the Cathedral and provide a very poor foreground to the views. The introduction of development which would fully or partially screen the Cathedral in these locations, such as from Tentercroft Street and Oxford Street, is considered to be acceptable where the new buildings repair the townscape and can in those circumstances be balanced against the new views of all or part of the Cathedral created by the development on key routes such as the new pedestrian bridge over the railway and River Street.

Indicative views north from both the proposed pedestrian footbridge over the railway and River Street

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area and Justification for the Demolition The Cathedral and City Centre Conservation Area The majority of the site lies within the Cathedral and City Centre Conservation Area. This encompasses the historic centre of Lincoln stretching from Central Station in the south to Cecil Street/Church Lane in the north and from Victoria Street/Orchard Street in the west to around Lindum Road/Melville Street in the east. Given the extent of the Conservation Area, a wide variety of buildings and spaces are evident which create a varied character and appearance. In addition, approximately half of the application site is located in the south-eastern corner of the Conservation Area falling within the Sincil Street (14), Norman Street (15) and Central Station (16) character areas within the Lincoln Townscape Assessment. The eastern boundary of the application site just overlaps with the Great Northern Terrace Industrial (17) character area. The key characteristics and overall significance of the Cathedral and City Centre Conservation Area principally relate to the northern part of the Conservation Area, the uphill area, which is of national and in some cases international architectural and historic significance. Development is largely based on the medieval street pattern and some medieval buildings remain, and the townscape is of exceptional quality. It has been demonstrated that the key views available of this part of the City are either maintained or their loss mitigated as outlined earlier within the report, and although some views of the site would be available from it as is the case for all of the lower parts of the City, the development would have no physical impact on this part of the Conservation Area. The High Street, generally following the alignment of the former Roman Road, was largely redeveloped in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Whilst there are a number of listed buildings including the Stonebow and High Bridge which are Grade I, there are also a larger number of 20th Century buildings of limited architectural and historic interest. Although still significant, this part of the Conservation Area, to the south of The Strait, cannot be considered as architecturally or historically significant as the northern part. The built form of the development would similarly have limited physical impact on this part of the Conservation Area, the existing scale and general grain of buildings ensuring that views from the main High Street shopping precinct would be extremely limited. The development would, however, improve linkages to the Central Shopping Core, and pedestrian flows around the City Centre in general, improving the vitality and viability of this area. At the south-eastern boundary of the Conservation Area (part of the lower hillside area) in the vicinity of the application site, 20th Century buildings plus the introduction of the 1960's bus station have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area, however some buildings, such as those on Sincil Street, retain architectural and historic significance as described later in the report. The development would mainly replace buildings which are not significant contributors to the Conservation Area, and in most cases would repair some of the poor townscape currently present within this area. Although it is therefore considered the development in its broadest terms would not harm this part of the Conservation Area, the impact of the proposed demolitions here does require further consideration and is therefore assessed below. The Impact of the Demolitions on the Conservation Area There are no statutorily listed or locally listed buildings within the main body of the site, however Lincoln Central Station adjoining the south-western boundary of the site is Grade II listed. As part of the proposals, the Co-op foodstore, bus station, roof top car park and retail units between Sincil Street and Melville Street are to be demolished. In particular, to

the south of the site, the demolition of 18-23 Sincil Street and 2 – 3 Norman Street, as well as the Station Wall, would be demolished to facilitate the delivery of the anchor store, bus station and associated station crossing. The demolitions plan is illustrated below.

The bulk of demolition required to facilitate the redevelopment comprises late 20th Century development of little historical interest or architectural value. Buildings such as the Bus Station, City Square Centre and Oxford Hall are not considered to be Heritage Assets as outlined within PPS 5 given that it cannot be considered they have the archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic significance that would require their retention. In addition, they offer minimal scope for viable conversion or for inclusion as part of the scheme, whilst the principle of the loss of such buildings to facilitate redevelopment of this area has been established through the CCMP process.

Sincil Street is of varied character and quality, however it is recognised that the buildings forming the eastern side of Sincil Street do have some historic interest particularly when viewed collectively, being good examples of two and three storey mid to late 19th Century buildings which historically formed a secondary commercial frontage. The applicants have, however, undertaken their own individual assessment of the merits of the buildings to be demolished, together with their impact on the character and

appearance of the Conservation Area, in relation to English Heritage guidance and PPS5.

Demolished buildings depicted in Orange

Their assessment concludes that these buildings do not constitute heritage assets and do not positively contribute the character and appearance of the Cathedral and City Centre Conservation Area no.1. As part of their objection, English Heritage state that whilst the Bus Station and other modern structures are of little interest, the applicant‟s submitted justification unduly dismisses a number of historic buildings, including 18-23 and 30a - 31 Sincil Street, as well as 2 – 3 Norman Street. English Heritage considers that, in particular, 18-23 are of merit as an intact row of mid 19th Century commercial frontages with a very strong corner onto Norman Street. They consider that these buildings, when considered collectively, significantly contribute to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. For Members information, copies of both English Heritage responses can be seen at Appendix Five. Relevant National Planning Policy In accordance with PPS 5, its accompanying practice guide and associated case law, buildings which contribute to the character and appearance of a Conservation Area are deemed to be individual heritage assets, whether formally designated or not. It is considered that, in accordance with PPS 5 and contrary to the applicant‟s submitted justification, numbers 18 – 23, 30a and 31 Sincil Street, as well as 2 – 3 Norman Street collectively contribute to the Conservation Area, and would therefore be classed as undesignated heritage assets. Their demolition therefore requires an assessment in relation to this Policy. PPS5 states that the "significance" of a "historic asset" (whether designated or undesignated) should be established (Policy HE6.1) and an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the significance should be provided (Policy HE6.2). In considering the impact of a proposal on any heritage asset, the particular nature of significance and value of the heritage asset should be taken into account (Policy HE 7.2), and the effect of development proposals on the significance of an undesignated heritage asset or its setting is a material consideration in determining the application (HE8.1). Policy HE 9.1 also states that any demolition and development in general also needs to be assessed against the impact on any designated heritage asset, which in this instance forms both the Grade II Listed Lincoln Central Station as well as the Conservation Area itself. Lincoln Central Station To facilitate the redevelopment proposals and accommodate the proposed PTI the station wall with attached footbridge and the single storey red-brick store room within the station

car park are to be demolished. The significance of Central Station is both architectural and historical. It is an example of a mid. 19th century Tudor revival style building that was designed specifically for the Great Northern Railway Company. Neither the station wall nor footbridge, however, contain a level of significance in themselves which warrant individual protection, given that there is minimal architectural, historic, archaeological or artistic interest associated with these

elements. Although the footbridge was constructed at the same time of the station, it has

been significantly altered since that time and presents a poor pedestrian environment, its replacement being a benefit of the scheme. In addition, the station wall appears to have been constructed in the early 20th Century (between 1907 and 1932), and it did not form part of the original design or layout of the station. The piers and openings are later 20th Century alterations introduced when the tracks were removed and a car park created. The wall interrupts the principal façade of the building, and its demolition would better reveal the significance of Central Station by revealing its full façade when viewed from the north, the western part of St Mary‟s Street and Oxford Street. The adjacent new development, in particular the new footbridge, bus station and reconfigured areas of public realm have been designed to respect the setting of the station and the wider area. The building and canopy are of a scale which would not compete with the main station building and would remain subservient to it as the principal building here, and this, together with the remaining proposed development, would ensure that its setting is maintained. It is therefore considered that the demolition of these elements will not have a harmful impact on the setting or special architectural and historic interest of this building, however this is assessed in more detail within the accompanying Conservation Area Consent and Listed Building Consent application. In addition the loss of these structures would not harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, particularly as the bridge will be replaced and the loss of the wall and store facilitates the delivery of the new PTI as part of the wider improvements to the townscape in this area.

47, 30A, 31 Sincil Street Numbers 30A and 31 Sincil Street pictured adjacent are a block of two three-storey buildings, forming part of the original terrace circa 1842. Whilst buildings in this location are first shown on the 1842 map, historic mapping shows that extensive alterations took place around the turn of the twentieth century, when both formed a single unit. Constructed from red brick the buildings have some architectural merit at first and second floor level, but have had

insensitive modern shopfronts inserted at ground floor level which detracts from their overall aesthetic quality. In addition their loss to facilitate the new Sincil Lane will include a new corner building which fronts Sincil Street. This new gateway into the proposed scheme will improve permeability and go some way to mitigate the loss of the Nineteenth Century buildings at this point. The demolition of these units is also an established feature of the CCMP to enable pedestrian access into the scheme and increase connectivity with the retail core to the west.

No.47 Sincil Street shown opposite is a three storey red brick building at the northern end of the street which was a later addition to the earlier terrace. It has also been adapted and modified over the years with ventilation grilles to replace the second floor window openings, and an unsympathetic modern shopfront, removing any of the original features of the building at ground floor level.

Whilst the above buildings do have some architectural and historic merit, in particular 30a and 31 Sincil Street, they are not significant or unique examples of nineteenth century commercial buildings, particularly considering the degree of alteration they have undergone over the years. Furthermore, the loss of both 30a and 31 has been accepted as part of the CCMP process and it is not considered that their demolition will have a significantly harmful impact on the collective historic and architectural value of the east side of Sincil Street and its contribution to the Conservation Area. 18-23 Sincil Street and 2-3 Norman Street Nos. 2-3 Norman Street are first seen on the 1868 map and both buildings are of a brick construction, however no. 2 is painted white and number 3 has a rendered eastern

elevation. The buildings have been extensively altered over time with replacement modern ground floor shopfronts and although number 2 retains its original sash windows number three has had its windows significantly altered. Both buildings are considered to be examples of late nineteenth century commercial buildings of limited quality which have suffered from unsympathetic alteration throughout the twentieth century. In addition, the retail units are now vacant, whilst some of the windows appear to have been boarded up.

18-23 Sincil Street are three-storey red brick buildings with slate roofs that are first seen on the 1851 map, and form a separate block to the remainder of the terrace on the east side of Sincil Street. No. 18-20 now forms a single unit and is a former Italian restaurant, comprising vertically proportioned sash windows on the upper floors with the first floor

windows having triangular pediments above, and a glazed shopfront at ground floor. It forms the end terrace on the eastern side of the street. Nos. 21-23 have canted bay windows at first floor level with smaller sash windows above. The ground floor shop windows of these units are likely to be similar to the original shopfronts, particularly no. 23. The applicants argue that nos. 18-23 are of limited historic and architectural interest that do not meet the tests for positive contributors to the Conservation Area. I consider however that these buildings are of clear merit as an intact row of relatively unaltered mid-nineteenth century commercial buildings with a strong corner onto Norman Street.

It is therefore considered that the demolition of nos. 18-23 Sincil Street would represent significant harm in terms of the loss of several undesignated heritage assets of architectural and historic merit, as well as the impact on the Conservation Area as a designated heritage asset. Policy HE 9.2 of PPS 5 states that „where the application will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance, consent should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the harm is necessary to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss‟. I consider, however, that the public benefits of the scheme are substantial and outweigh the loss of undesignated heritage assets. As stated earlier in the report the loss of 18-23 Sincil Street and the re-alignment of Norman place are necessary and unavoidable to ensure the delivery of a successful layout with an appropriately sized department store and Passenger Transport Interchange. The existing bus station is an oppressive and poorly designed structure and its relocation to sit adjacent the railway station will facilitate safer and easier transport interchange and encourage increased public transport use in a more attractive environment. Its location at the southern end of the scheme is also imperative to realise the vision within the CCMP for an integrated multi-modal passenger transport interchange. As stated previously the position and size of the department store at the southern end of the retail loop has been justified, its size and location being a key element of the viability and deliverability of the scheme as a whole. The combination of the position of these two elements as well as the technical requirements therein is critical to the success of the scheme and necessitates the loss of these buildings. In more general terms the delivery of this development will create improvements to some areas of poor townscape quality, together with increased connectivity to the south and west through the delivery of new pedestrianised streets and improved footbridge. This facility will offer disabled access and a more attractive and safer pedestrian connection to the city centre from Park Ward and other areas to the south. In conjunction with this the substantial public realm improvements in front of the Railway Station and St. Mary‟s Street will significantly improve what will become a more prominent entrance into the City. The scheme also includes the refurbishment and improvement to the existing shop fronts on the east side of Sincil Street. New shop units will be introduced adjacent to no.24 Sincil Street, fronting Norman Place and facing the department store as well as along the newly formed Sincil Lane offering potential accommodation for any displaced traders. The

development will also create new views of the Cathedral, St. Swithins church and the hillside in general from the new foot bridge and River Street, and would therefore deliver substantial public benefit in townscape terms.

The economic benefits of the scheme are significant, particularly in terms of the substantial employment created as a result, both within the construction and retail sectors. As outlined later within the retail section of this report the scheme will provide larger retail units which are currently in short supply in the city centre. These large space units are required to accommodate high value retail occupiers who would otherwise either not locate in Lincoln

Indicative view of retail frontage to Norman Place

or be diverted to out of town retail park locations making regeneration of the city centre more difficult to achieve. Furthermore the scheme would meet the established demand for additional retail floorspace within the city over the medium term, and in a location considered to be the most appropriate and accessible to support the requirements of the city‟s population and increase consumer choice. It has therefore been demonstrated that the majority of the proposed demolition will not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Whilst the loss of 18-23 Sincil Street is considered significantly harmful, there is clear justification that the loss is required to deliver a viable scheme and the associated considerable public benefits identified as a result outweigh this harm, in line with Policy 9.2(i) of PPS 5. Overall and notwithstanding the demolitions of 18-23 Sincil Street, the development proposals will at least preserve and in places enhance the character and appearance of the Cathedral and City Centre Conservation Area, again in accordance with PPS 5. Retail and Economic Impact on the City Centre The overall aim of this major retail led, mixed use scheme is to provide a level of predominantly comparison goods floorspace which will enhance Lincoln‟s draw as a shopping destination and compete effectively with the larger centres in the wider region. Clearly, however, given the scale and nature of such a scheme the impact on the wider City Centre forms an important consideration and the applicants have submitted a retail statement which addresses this issue. In addition to assessing the proposal in terms of national planning policy, the proposal also needs to be assessed against relevant local evidence bases. The GVA Grimley Study and draft Central Lincolnshire City and Town Centre‟s Study In order to establish the retail need within the City, GVA Grimley were commissioned by the City Council in 2007 to produce a retail study, and the applicants have correctly used this study to inform their retail statement. Subsequent to the submission of the application and additional updated information, however, an updated retail study „Central Lincolnshire City and Town Centres Study‟ was produced in late 2011. Although still only in draft form, this provides the most up to date evidence base for retail in the City particularly given that it addresses projected levels of growth which were not envisaged within the earlier GVA Grimley study, however still reinforces many of the points outlined within it. In particular, both studies reinforce Lindongate as the main retail opportunity to meet future need for additional comparison goods floorspace. Evidence within both the GVA Grimley and draft study considers that Lincoln currently performs strongly in terms of its market share, accommodating a wide range of comparison and convenience goods retailers. However, in order to support the level of growth being planned for through the Core Strategy the draft study identifies a need for significant additional comparison and convenience goods floorspace over the LDF period. In the short to medium term, to 2021, the draft study states that the Lindongate proposals would enable a significant proportion of the comparison need to be met, helping the city centre to continue to evolve and ensuring that its role is maintained and enhanced as in line with projected growth of the central Lincolnshire. The draft study outlines that Lincoln‟s City Centre is and will remain the principal centre for retailing and other associated uses within Central Lincolnshire, given the high levels of growth being promoted for Lincoln and the wider area through the emerging policies of the Core Strategy. It is therefore essential that appropriate opportunities are realised that will enable the City Centre to both maintain its role as a key driver for growth and provider of services to support the current and future population.

Specifically in terms of the form proposed, the provision of a modern department store is seen as an opportunity to significantly improve the qualitative comparison offer of the City Centre in accordance with the long term aspirations of growth. The Lindongate proposal has therefore been identified as the City‟s principal retail led development opportunity, and is put forward as the key opportunity at the present time to enhance the city centre‟s retail offer. National Planning Policy In terms of national planning policy, PPS 4 places retail and town centre development in its wider context, as „economic development‟. The policy statement reinforces the „town centre first‟ policy in relation to developments which include town centre uses. The mix of uses proposed fits comfortably within the policies definition of town centres uses (para 2.3) and therefore the location of the development, being within the city centre, is sequentially preferred and in accordance with the principles of PPS4. In addition to this, the PPS outlines an impact test which economic development schemes should be assessed against before their impacts can be understood. The impact test consists of two sets of assessments; one applying to all forms of economic development and the other to town centre uses only. In relation town centre uses only, Policy EC.16.1 (e) states that if located within a town centre, the proposal should be of an appropriate scale, in terms of gross floorspace, in relation to the size of the centre and its roll in the hierarchy of centres. As well as this, Policy EC10.2 identifies the impact considerations for all economic development as: whether the proposal limits carbon dioxide emissions and provides resilience to

climate change; the accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design and addresses the

character of the area the impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area; and the impact on local employment.

Assessment Against the Tests Outlined in Policy EC 16.1 (e) of PPS 4 Lincoln‟s Role in the Shopping Hierarchy In terms of the comparative analysis of town centres, Lincoln is ranked 34th in the UK, and the analysis of the existing shopping hierarchy demonstrates that Lincoln City Centre is a “major regional centre”. However, as outlined within the submitted retail statement, pipeline retail development proposals in competing towns have the potential to put Lincoln‟s relative position in the hierarchy at risk. For example major retail development proposals are currently being considered in Nottingham at the Victoria Centre, where a substantial extension is proposed. As well as this, it is also worth noting that the retail offer of Leicester City Centre in particular has significantly improved providing further competition to Lincoln City Centre. It is therefore considered that if significant improvements to Lincoln‟s shopping offer are not implemented, the City Centre‟s role and position within the shopping hierarchy will be undermined, contrary to the objectives of Development Plan policy as well as the emerging LDF, which seek to strengthen Lincoln‟s role in accordance with the growth envisaged.

Scale of Floorspace and Retail Need The GVA Grimley Retail Study confirmed that there will be capacity to support further comparison goods floorspace in Lincoln of 15 319 sq m net by 2011 increasing to 32,861 sq m net by 2016 and 52,981 sq m net by 2021. At between 29 000 sq m and 34 000 sqm, the Lindongate scheme will meet the projected medium term demand for retail floor space in the City. In addition, GVA Grimley note that the floorspace would comprise a series of large format retail units and an anchor department/variety store operator. When considering the Lindongate site, GVA Grimley confirm that it is the most centrally located and consequently, sequentially preferable site within the City Centre to accommodate the scale of comparison goods floorspace needed to enhance Lincoln‟s draw as a shopping destination and compete effectively with the larger centres in the wider region. It should also be noted that the draft Town Centres Study reiterates the need for a similar projection of retail floorspace as previously proposed, and therefore the scale of the development in terms of floorspace provision is wholly in accordance with both the existing and draft retail studies. The Lindongate proposals therefore meet the need identified without requiring an increase in market share, and it has been successfully demonstrated that the proposals are of an appropriate scale. This development will help to maintain the City Centre‟s shopping role in the region and will provide customers with enhanced choice and benefits from competition between retailers, and the proposals therefore comply with Policy 16.1(e) of PPS4. Assessment Against the Tests Outlined in Policy EC 10.2 of PPS 4 Accessibility/Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions The application site is well served by non-car travel modes (walking, cycling and by public transport) and therefore complies with the requirement for the development to be accessible by a choice of means of transport. A network of pedestrian streets will be created through the development site and pedestrian footways will be provided adjacent to all roads within the current local road network. A new pedestrian footbridge will be provided across the railway and a new controlled crossing will be provided on Norman Street at the St Mary‟s Street junction. A wide uncontrolled crossing is also proposed on St Mary‟s Street to provide a gateway to the interchange and a direct linkage to the retail core. As the site is accessible by a choice of means of transport within the City Centre, it is unlikely to result in a significant increase in traffic although this is assessed in detail later in the report. It is also likely to clawback shoppers from surrounding centres thereby reducing journey lengths and the need for vehicular trips outside of the City. Consequently it will assist in limiting carbon dioxide emissions and minimise vulnerability/provide resilience to climate change, therefore complying with the relevant PPS4 tests. Furthermore, and as described later within the report, a planning condition is recommended to ensure sustainability measures are integral to the final design and construction methodology of the scheme. Securing a High Quality Design and Physical Regeneration As the planning application is submitted in outline, the design of the proposed development has not been finalised. It is essential however that the final design and palette of materials are of high quality, taking into account the character of the site and surrounding area, and this will remain in the control of the Local Planning Authority given that it will be subject to a detailed reserved matters application. As already discussed the layout shown will integrate with the existing pattern of development in the surrounding

area, improving connectivity, permeability and legibility whilst repairing some of the lower grade townscape. Employment Creation and Economic Regeneration A significant benefit of this proposed development is the creation of additional jobs. PPS4 emphasises that importance that should be attached to this benefit. Specifically, the proposed development is estimated to result, directly and indirectly, in a net gain of up to 2,225-2,920 permanent jobs in total within the local area, rising to between 2,475-3,250 at regional level and when including indirect jobs in the local area. The applicant has also committed to the prioritisation of employment opportunities for existing local residents both in terms of construction and retailing as part of the completed scheme, which would form a condition as part of any consent. In terms of the wider impact considerations of economic development set out in PPS4 (EC10.2), it has been demonstrated that the scheme would clearly have a positive impact on local employment and would promote local inclusion within the central area of the City. In addition, the regeneration benefits are clear whilst high quality design and the sustainability of the proposal can be secured through condition and as part of this and reserved matters submissions. It is therefore considered that the tests as outlined within EC 10.2 OF PPS 4 have been met by the proposal. Trade Diversion and Retail Displacement In addition to the impact test as described above, the wider implications for the City Centre also need to be considered. For a scheme the size and scale of Lindongate, it is clear that there will inevitably be trade diversion from existing retail facilities within the City. The proposal is expected to cause a 19.5% reduction in turnover from existing comparison retail floorspace within the City Centre, although this is considered to be the worst case level of expected internal trade diversion. This will be offset somewhat, however, by a projected total increase in turnover within the City Centre of around £50 million, an increase of 13% on the current level of turnover. Lindongate would also be expected claw back trade from existing, out of centre retail facilities as well as other towns and cities within the vicinity. In addition and as an indirect result, once successfully established this development should create a ripple effect which will be enhanced by the new pedestrian linkages between the site and the remainder of the City Centre. As envisaged by the CCMP, the provision of this retail loop would significantly strengthen the retail position of the City Centre, with the potential for rising values to extend across the remainder of the Central Shopping Core. It is therefore considered that any diversion of trade would be offset by the wider economic benefits for the city centre, in particular the substantial increase in predicted total turnover. An objection the original scheme was received from the Sincil Street Traders, stating that the proposed development would be detrimental to the Sincil Street retailers in terms of trade diversion. It has already been demonstrated, however, that the scheme is likely to cater for larger scale retail units and not the small scale, individual units which are currently present on Sincil Street and therefore is unlikely this will provide direct competition on a like for like basis. In addition, the scheme will significantly enhance foot flow here which would be to the benefit of the traders on Sincil Street, given the opportunity for an increase in shoppers to the area. In terms of retail displacement, a scheme of this scale is likely to generate some relocation of retailers within a centre the size of Lincoln. The prime retail pitch, acknowledged as

being between Cornhill and the Stonebow, is relatively compact when compared to other towns with similar retail rankings. The strength of this section of the High Street is such that it will continue to retain its position as the prime retail pitch within the City regardless of this development, and therefore traders are unlikely to leave this location for the new scheme unless their existing property is inadequate. Where this is the case it has been demonstrated that there is sufficient demand from national multiple retailers to fill these voids. This is evident, even in the recent recession, with new recent lettings to major national retailers such as Paperchase and Fat Face which proves the strength of the prime retail pitch. In addition, the applicant has confirmed their willingness to work with the City Council in terms of ensuring that the overall retail offer of the City Centre is managed throughout the Lindongate development process. Notwithstanding this a more detailed retail displacement strategy, to ensure the continued vibrancy and vitality of the High Street is not compromised, should form a condition of any consent.

The retail statement purports that the quality of the retail offer in the city centre can only be raised if the current structural weaknesses in the centre are addressed by the scheme. These include a shortage of large space units which cannot be accommodated on the High Street, a fact outlined within the two recent retail studies, whilst it also states that improvements to public transport services and improvements to both the quality and extent of car parking conveniently available are required. As well as this, the statement also outlines that development such as Lindongate cannot be considered in isolation and any new development must have strong linkages to the prime retail area. It is considered that the proposed scheme and the additional floorspace proposed addresses the identified weaknesses and has the potential therefore to attract quality retailers which would enhance both the qualitative and quantitative retail offer within the City. Furthermore, it has been sufficiently demonstrated that the resultant increase in retail offer and consumer choice can be accommodated without causing harm to vitality and viability of the existing City Centre, enhancing the shopping experience for both residents and visitors alike. Overall Economic Viability of the Scheme Clearly the economic situation has deteriorated since mid 2008 when the application was originally submitted and the economic outlook continues to be uncertain. In addition the scheme is front loaded with high infrastructure costs such as the provision of the new PTI, pedestrian foot bridge and amendments to the highway layout as well as significant demolition. Nevertheless it should be borne in mind that any development of this scale takes a number of years to deliver and can often extend through economic cycles. Concern over the economic viability of the scheme has been expressed as part of the formal consultation process and in response to this the applicant has provided a viability assessment taking into account all the costs of the development. This assessment has demonstrated that the scheme, whilst marginal, can be delivered in the form proposed. In addition the new owners of the Waterside Centre have commented that in general terms such a scheme could be delivered in the current economic climate, particularly as the applicants have committed to delivering some of the initial infrastructure requirements of the scheme. Given the high infrastructure costs, clearly the proposed phasing of such development would be imperative in ensuring the scheme is viable moving forward. The initial phasing plan does, however, include some of the most costly elements of the scheme within the initial phases, including highway and associated works to re-align Norman Street, Oxford

Street and St Mary‟s Street. In addition to this, the applicants have already committed to providing the new pedestrian footbridge over the railway in advance of securing a development partner to take the scheme forward, whilst a separate application has also been submitted to demolish the former Grand Hotel which is to be undertaken imminently. The initial phasing plan can be viewed at Appendix Four. In general terms, anecdotal evidence within the retail sector as put forward by the applicants suggests that due to competition from out of town retail, the multi-channel trading style of major supermarkets and the growth of e-tailing, future new retail development is likely to be concentrated on two types of retail destination. The first is the large scale scheme to be found in major regional centres and the second is the type of genuinely distinctive smaller centre which can offer either a strong tourist element, a quality built environment or some other unique feature. Lincoln is therefore in a positive position to bring forward retail development, as a major regional centre, with the attraction of the uphill tourist area around the Cathedral and Castle, quality buildings in both the uphill area and the heart of the commercial centre and a developing leisure destination around Brayford Pool. It is therefore considered that the proposal would provide a viable retail led development which complies with national retail policy. In addition, it would satisfy a need for additional comparison goods floorspace as outlined within the relevant local evidence bases and taking into account the projected growth of the City and immediate surrounding area. It has been demonstrated that the increase in retail offer would have significant benefit for the City and Central Shopping Core and, subject to a suitable retail displacement strategy, would have a positive economic impact on the City. Highways and the Quantum of Parking Implications for the Highway Network It should be noted that both vehicular and pedestrian access are to be considered as part of this Outline application. This has required the detail of these elements of the proposal to be finalised at this point. In general terms, the Highway Authority are satisfied that, in principle, the proposed highway works in relation to the development are appropriate, and in the wider sense would not have an unacceptable impact on the highway network in terms of capacity and safety. In transport terms, I am satisfied that a highway network has been developed to meet the needs of Bus Operators, shoppers, service vehicles and pedestrians. The submitted analysis included the impact of the proposed East West Link Road and the likely effects of future level crossing closures at High Street. The findings show that the scheme can cater for forecast traffic in the worst case morning peak period and at peak times on a Saturday.

Notwithstanding this, the detailed highway layout has been the subject of ongoing negotiations throughout the application process. This has resulted in amendments to the highway network from what was submitted originally. The amendments principally relate to - The new road junction at St Mary‟s Street/Norman Street/Oxford Street, The proposed new road layout at the Oxford Street/Pelham Street gyratory, The proposed pedestrian crossing at Thornbridge/Melville Street, and The pedestrian access to the south side of Oxford Street and St Mary‟s Street to the

rear of the PTI.

Proposed New Road Junction at St Mary‟s Street/Norman Street/Oxford Street and the new Oxford Street/ Pelham Street Gyratory Following a review of the form of junction as submitted, the Highway Authority undertook a validation exercise to consider priorities, capacity, pedestrian movement and safety. This

concluded that the most appropriate solution here would be a signal controlled junction, to accommodate pedestrian safety and convenience, as well as to facilitate optimum traffic flow across St Mary‟s Street with particular consideration given to east west bus movements. This junction has therefore been revised to address the concerns of the Highway Authority, and they are now comfortable with this junction, the detail of which is shown adjacent. In formulating this section of revised highway, significant

consideration was given to vehicular capacity and flows, to prevent any stacking of vehicles in this location which may lead to additional queuing onto Broadgate. As part of the proposals, the new gyratory proposed on Oxford Street will facilitate vehicular access to the new PTI, as well as accommodating south bound traffic along Broadgate wishing to access the site. As part of the formation of the gyratory, bus movements were also a primary consideration, particularly as the only vehicular access to the PTI is at its eastern end. Pedestrian Crossing at Thornbridge/Melville Street As part of the original proposals, the existing pedestrian footbridge which goes over Broadgate from Waterside South was to be demolished. This was in accordance with the aspirations of the CCMP, which envisaged an at-grade crossing to better facilitate pedestrian movement at this point of the site. The original proposal was therefore to provide an-at grade, signal controlled crossing in line with the aspirations of the CCMP. The Highway Authority undertook a detailed technical assessment of this crossing, and concluded that, due to its form and position, pedestrian safety would be compromised. This was due to the lack of visibility for both motorists approaching the crossing and pedestrians using it, as well as the insufficient space of the central reservation proposed. Also of particular concern was the proximity of the junction with Waterside North, given the limited visibility of the crossing for vehicles exiting left and heading south. It has therefore not been successfully demonstrated that, at the current time, the at-grade crossing initially proposed would be acceptable to the Highway Authority.

This led to the consideration of the retention of the bridge in its current form, however this was discounted due its significant impact on the proposed Block A, and the resultant harm this would create in townscape terms with the loss of a frontage to the River. A

compromise has therefore been reached, to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority, which retains the majority of the structure whilst reconfiguring the western end to accommodate Block A. An initial plan is detailed adjacent, however further detail will be provided at your meeting regarding the visual impact of this. Notwithstanding this, it is still the long term aspiration, however, in accordance with the CCMP, for the bridge to be demolished and an at-grade crossing implemented in this location. It is therefore proposed that an appropriately worded condition is attached to any consent, which builds in the flexibility for either a

footbridge or preferably an at-grade crossing to be provided here should it be demonstrated that this can work in this location. The condition will also require, should the bridge remain, substantial visual improvements to the bridge as a whole. The PTI and Pedestrian Access The public transport interchange has been the subject of negotiation throughout the process, and number of design and layout options have been explored. The final design, whilst indicative, provides a multi modal transport hub with access to the railway station, taxi services, cycle parking, associated offices, information desk, ticket office and public toilets. The highway takes the form of a herringbone style layout for the buses in operation with a large concourse which has a canopy at the southern end. To the east is an additional bus layover area for 7 buses. Both the Highway Authority and potential bus operator are satisfied with the proposed arrangement, in terms of provision, layout, design and access. The Highway Authority did, however, request the provision of dedicated pedestrian access between the public transport interchange and the employment premises fronting Pelham Street and Newton Street. This is now proposed at the southern end of the PTI however this will remain in the ownership of Network Rail, and therefore will not be adopted as public highway. The Highway Authority have therefore requested a condition to ensure this route remains accessible to pedestrians for the duration of the development. The indicative layout and design of the PTI is detailed on the image below.

Servicing for the Scheme Whilst the majority of the larger footprint units and department store will have their own dedicated servicing areas, accessed directly off the principal highways, it is likely that additional servicing access to the smaller units will be required along the newly formed River Street, the details of which should form a condition of any consent. Concern was raised in relation to HGV access into and egress from the dedicated servicing yards of Block A onto Melville Street. It has been demonstrated however, through a detailed swept path analysis, that both the access and egress points are adequate to accommodate all types of delivery vehicle. Quantum of Parking The application proposes a minimum of 850, and a maximum of 900 car parking spaces, distributed between Blocks A and E. The maximum figure comprises the following; 150 long stay car parking spaces for Network Rail to be located within

Block E; Up to 20 residential car parking spaces; Up to 730 short stay shopper car parking spaces.

This figure does not include any replacement car parking to be operated specifically by the City Council. There is a separate legal requirement for the applicant to provide approximately 300 parking spaces to replace those City Council spaces at Thornbridge which would be lost as a result of the scheme. Currently, the site comprises a number of areas of existing car parking which contribute approximately 544 parking spaces to the City‟s parking stock, and this is distributed as follows; Thornbridge car park – approximately 240 spaces;

St Mary‟s Street car park – approximately 194 spaces; Railway Station car park – approximately 110 spaces.

Whilst the applicants have stated that there are other, smaller pockets of parking available in and around the application site, these are not considered to be widely available to the public. The proposal therefore represents an increase in the available parking within the City Centre of approximately 656 spaces based on the maximum number stated. This figure includes the provision of 300 City Council spaces which would be provided within the City Centre to offset the loss of spaces from Thornbridge. The application proposes a maximum of just over 34,000 sq m of retail floorspace. Based on the Lincolnshire County Council standards this would generate a need for a maximum of 1,700 car parking spaces in its own right and the increase in provision is clearly within this standard. This is, however, based on the needs of developments being provided in isolation and does not take into account schemes such as Lindongate which contribute to an existing parking stock, and which have good access to several other modes of transport set within the context of an existing City Centre. These factors suggest that a lower provision would be more appropriate than the standards would permit, and therefore the quantum of parking proposed needs to be assessed against a range of other factors. Whilst the City Council Parking Strategy is in the early stages of formulation, there is guidance on City Centre parking within the Lincoln Transport Strategy as well as the CCMP which advocates reservoirs of parking at strategic locations. Despite this, data provided by the Council‟s Parking Services section suggests that there is an excess of provision of City Centre parking, even at peak times. This includes some car parks which cannot be considered to be in the most convenient or prominent locations, and anecdotal evidence provided by the applicant suggests that car parks in prime locations are frequently at or close to capacity. This provides an important backdrop for the justification for the additional parking proposed, and in any case it can be reasonably accepted that a scheme of this scale and nature requires additional parking provision at the level proposed to support the scheme. To this end, Modus, as part of the original submission, forecast that the scheme required at least 1000 shopper car parking spaces. This was based on the developer‟s experience elsewhere in the UK in developing large town centre schemes. Notwithstanding this, the constraints imposed by the size of the site and its location in a historic City Centre means that the level of car parking is below the optimum level previously proposed, as well as specific parking standards. The scale of the buildings proposed has been the subject of extensive negotiations since 2008, resulting in a reduction in scale of the proposed blocks containing car parking, in particular Block E. As a result, the level of car parking has been reduced from that being proposed originally. On a commercial basis, the applicants argue that the level of car parking proposed is the minimum required for a scheme of this nature and scale to make it commercially viable for both the developer and any investor. Also, and as previously stated within this report, an anchor department store to the south of the scheme is also crucial to the success of Lindongate. Any department store operator will require close, accessible, high quality car parking and without this provision it is unlikely they would operate from the scheme. Furthermore, the additional publicly available, short stay shopper parking would create additional provision to also support the existing retail shopping core. This view is supported in the response from the Highways Agency, who state that “the level of parking proposed is appropriate to meet the needs of the uses proposed and retail facilities in the wider area”.

An initial objection was, however, received in relation to the car parking and specifically relating to the impact on the trunk road network, from the Highways Agency. This has, however, now been removed after updated information was submitted. Given the nature and location of the proposed car parking, it is considered that a specific parking signage strategy is required, in the form of an electronic display driver information system, and therefore a condition to this effect should be attached if permission is granted. It is therefore considered that the applicants have successfully demonstrated that the level of parking is required in view of the scale of the proposed Lindongate scheme and to deliver the significant improvement in the retail offer both in quantitative and qualitative terms, whilst ensuring the buildings are of a scale which sit comfortably within the existing townscape. Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage In relation to flood risk, the vulnerability classification of the site has changed since the original submission in 2008, when at that time the site was within Flood Zone 3A which constitutes an area at the highest flood risk of flooding. The Environment Agency (EA) therefore originally formally objected to the proposals based on the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) at that time. Since that time, however, updated modelling information has determined that the site is located within Flood Zone 1, with a low risk of annual flooding. A supplementary Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy was therefore submitted to accompany the application, and the EA now consider that the details in the FRA are now compliant with Annex E of Planning Policy Statement 25 'Development and Flood Risk' (PPS25), and are appropriate for the scale and nature of the proposed development. The conclusions of the FRA confirm that the proposed redevelopment site is at very low risk of flooding and that the site can be drained effectively through the integration of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) which is proposed as an integral part of the strategy. Given the urban constraints of the site this may prove difficult, however measures put forward include on site attenuation tanks which would be appropriate for the site, and this detail of which would form a condition of any consent. It is concluded that the proposed surface water drainage strategy will reduce the risk of flooding on and around the proposed redevelopment site. Sincil Dyke Culvert In discussions between the Environment Agency and the Consulting Engineers two areas of concern were identified by the EA in connection with the potential impact of the proposed development on the Sincil Dyke culvert. The areas of concern related to the section of the Sincil Dyke which currently runs beneath the footprint of the proposed Block E and the section of the culvert beneath the footprint of the proposed PTI canopy. In response to this, the applicants have confirmed that the section of culvert which runs beneath Block E will be reconstructed to the specification of the EA. In addition, the applicants have also confirmed that the PTI canopy shall be of a light weight steel construction which would allow appropriate access to the culvert at this point should the need arise. The EA have confirmed their acceptance with this solution, subject the detail being secured by condition.

Sustainability The site is in a sustainable location, within the City centre and „Central Shopping Core‟, and it is a brownfield site, with the majority of the site either covered in existing buildings or having been previously developed. The applicants stated intention is to reduce the carbon footprint of the development and its overall environmental impact. Although the current application is an outline application and most of the matters referred to will only be able to be determined in detail when reserved matters applications are submitted, it is considered that the issues identified will inform the future design, construction and future management of the development, its services systems and its infrastructure. The site contains many opportunities to incorporate elements which reduce its carbon footprint, such as green roofs, particularly on Blocks A and E, rainwater harvesting, photovoltaic cells and ground/air sources heat pumps, whilst building design itself can minimise heat loss and temperature fluctuations and passive solar features can minimise solar gain. As a minimum, the applicants have committed to the non-residential uses meeting a BREEAM rating of “very good” and the residential element will be a Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 and the detail of this should form a condition. During the demolition and construction phase a Construction Site Waste Management Plan, will be adhered to which will ensure that wherever possible the production of waste is minimised and dealt with sustainably, and again such a plan should be a condition of any consent. Subject to this and other stated conditions, it has been demonstrated that the proposals can brought forward in a sustainable manner and incorporate significant measures which reduce their carbon footprint, in line with one of the City Council‟s strategic priorities. Biodiversity and Ecology The site does not fall within any statutory or non-statutory wildlife site designations. The closest statutory designation is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is located approximately 2.4 kilometres to the north east of the application site. There are fifteen non statutory sites within 2 kilometres and four candidate sites. A Habitat Survey of the site accompanied the original submission and this confirmed that the ecological value of the site was low and that the proposed development was unlikely to significantly impact on any protected species. In addition, it stated that the site was only likely to support a small number of breeding birds and those are likely to be common species adapted to living in highly urbanised environments. Further to this, an updated and extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was submitted with the updated information in 2011. The analysis confirms that the development would not result in a permanent or temporary loss of any statutory or non-statutory designated sites and no significant adverse impact to the integrity of the sites of nature conservation importance are anticipated to result from the proposed development. This survey also included Bat Activity Surveys and no evidence was found to suggest that roosting bats were present in any of the buildings surveyed, and no impacts to roosting bats were anticipated to result from the scheme. The development will require land take of small areas of vegetation within limited potential to be used by foraging or commuting bats, however no significant effects to foraging or commuting bat populations are anticipated to result from the development as proposed. In summary, all potentially significant adverse ecological impacts can be avoided, compensated or mitigated and therefore no significant adverse residual impacts to nature

conservation are anticipated to result from the proposed scheme. The proposed development therefore complies with the principal aims of planning policy, including PPS9. Noise, Air Quality and Impact on Residential Amenity The site is located within a built up, urban area and is surrounded by existing roads. As a result, The ES and ES Addendum have assessed the impact of the development on local air quality and in respect of the likely additional noise. With regards to air quality, the impact is forecast to be insignificant. Any slight increase in the levels of air pollutants would not have a significant impact on the Lincoln City Council‟s Air Quality Action Plan or Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The dust generated during construction will be reduced by the use of appropriate mitigation measures, which would be outlined within the construction management plan which should be a condition of any consent. The noise assessment concludes that during construction the noise impact at the nearest residential properties would be at worst „substantially to moderately adverse‟ during certain phases of the construction programme. However, the „worst case‟ effects will be temporary in nature and it has been demonstrated the adoption of mitigation measures, such as control of hours of construction again through the management plan, would reduce the impact. Once constructed, there is forecast to be a marginal increase in noise resulting from the development to both nearby properties and those contained within the scheme. Adequate noise attenuation measures would, however, be implemented to ensure the existing and proposed residential properties do not experience undue noise intrusion and this should be a condition of the consent. It has therefore demonstrated that the noise generated, air quality or indeed any other aspect of the scheme would not have an undue impact on residential amenity, including the amenities of the occupiers of the new apartments proposed as part of the scheme. The application proposals therefore comply with relevant planning policy in relation to amenity of existing and potential occupants. Archaeology and Contaminated Land The application, ES and ES addendum addressed the impact of both archaeology and contaminated land. In terms of archaeology, the analysis indicated that significant remains exist within the development area and these may be encountered at shallow depth within some parts of the site. However, the majority of the development area lies within a low lying area which means that archaeological deposits of significance may be sealed beneath several metres of material. The City Archaeologist has viewed the strategy proposed which accepts the need for further investigations following demolition, in order to check on the survival of archaeological deposits. This information will then be applied to the assessment of the impact of the proposed groundworks on the archaeology the groundwork design in conjunction with a strategy to record what is likely to be lost. Subject to the appropriate condition, it has therefore been demonstrated that no further investigation is required prior to determination of the application. In terms of contaminated land, this was considered as part of the original ES. This concluded that there was a moderate/low risk given the minor aquifer present below the site and the River Witham from made ground and historic site uses, and set out a mitigation strategy to further evaluate the risks identified by the desk study. The strategy identified the scope of the intrusive investigation and the need for a radon assessment

together with asbestos surveys. This detail has been viewed by the Council‟s Contaminated Land Officer, who is satisfied that the mitigation measures are appropriate subject to the relevant, standard conditions. Conclusion The Lindongate development would provide a viable retail led development which is in accordance with national, regional and local policy and guidance in terms of its principle and the mix of uses proposed. In addition, it would satisfy a need for additional comparison goods floorspace as outlined within the relevant local evidence bases and taking into account the projected growth of the City and immediate surrounding area. The increase in retail offer would have significant benefits for the City and Central Shopping Core and would have a positive economic impact on the City. The demolitions including the loss of Nos. 18-23 Sincil Street and the realignment of Norman Place have been fully assessed and are necessary and critical to ensure the delivery of an appropriately sized department store and multi modal transport hub, and therefore the success of the scheme and the associated public benefits this would bring. The substantial public benefits of the scheme would outweigh the substantial harm to the Conservation Area brought about by the demolition of these properties. Whilst it is acknowledged that the development proposed does not specifically adhere to all elements envisaged within the brief for this key intervention site, the scheme delivers the overarching principles of the City Centre Masterplan in achieving the retail led regeneration required for the continued vibrancy and vitality of the City centre. The mix of units in the layout proposed is necessary to create a successful retail destination which assimilates with the existing city centre in accordance with the aspirations of the Masterplan. In the broader sense, the layout has responded to its setting in design terms, creating the network of new streets and secondary retail loop envisaged within the Masterplan offering increased connectivity to, and accessibility within, the City Centre. Specifically in relation to parking the applicants have successfully demonstrated that the level of parking is required in view of the scale of the proposed development, and to deliver the significant improvement in the retail offer both in quantitative and qualitative terms. In terms of scale and massing the more extensive and important views of the Cathedral and hillside are not unduly affected, and where they are impacted upon this is from the lesser quality townscape to the south-west of the site. The introduction of development which would fully or partially screen the Cathedral in other parts of the site is considered to be acceptable where the new buildings repair the townscape and can in those circumstances be balanced against the new views of all or part of the Cathedral created by the development. Contextually, the development will preserve and in some places enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Finally, it has been demonstrated that the proposals can be brought forward in a sustainable manner and incorporate significant measures which reduces its carbon footprint, whilst subject to conditions other issues of biodiversity, flood risk, contaminated land and archaeology can be satisfactorily addressed. In reaching the above conclusions, the EIA has been considered as part of the application process and is fully compliant with the relevant regulations in terms of its scope, content and methodology.

Application Within Target Date No – detailed negotiation and amendments required which facilitated re-consultation. Financial Implications None. Legal Implications The development would be the subject of Section 106 agreement. Equality Implications None. Application Negotiated Either at Pre-Application or During Process of Application Yes – substantial negotiation between key stakeholders has taken place over a number of years. Recommendation Delegate to the Development Service Manager to Grant planning permission subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement in relation to affordable housing, the delivery of wider environmental improvements and the provision of a local workforce training programme and subject to the following conditions: - Conditions to include:

Standard Reserved Matters Conditions Car Park Management Plan Development Phasing Sustainability Measures (BREEAM And Code For Sustainable Homes) Construction Waste Management Plan Improvements To Existing Sincil Street Frontages Prioritisation Of Jobs For Local People Retail Displacement And Marketing Strategy Management Of Public Areas Car Parking Charges And Management Bus Station / Temporary Provision And Management No Demolition Prior To Entering Into Construction Contracts Works To Culverted Drain Beneath Block E Contaminated Land Surface Water Drainage (SUDS) Scale Parameters Broadgate Pedestrian Crossing And Visual Improvements To Bridge If Required Footpath To Rear Of The Proposed PTI Servicing Details For River Street Parking Signage Strategy Noise Mitigation Measures Archaeology

Appendix One Overview of Planning Policy Relevant to the Application. National Planning Policy PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development – PPS 1 identifies that the Government is committed to promoting a strong, stable and productive economy that aims to bring jobs and prosperity for all (para. 23) Planning Authorities should promote urban and rural regeneration to improve the wellbeing of communities, improve facilities, promote high quality and safe development and create new opportunities for the people living in those locations (para.27). PPS 1 also promotes the more efficient use of land through higher density, mixed use development and the use of suitable previously developed land and buildings. It also states that planning should seek to get vacant and under-used previously developed land and buildings back into beneficial use. PPS 3: Housing – PPS 3 sets out the governments policy on housing development and reflects the Governments commitment to improving the affordability and supply of housing in all communities (para 3) and aims to create sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities (para 9). Housing developments should be located in suitable areas which offer a good range of community facilities and access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. PPS 4: Planning for sustainable economic growth – PPS 4 sets out the Governments policy on town centre uses and economic development requiring that planning applications are determined on the basis of compliance with the sequential approach and an impact assessment. The policy reinforces the Governments application of the „town centre first‟ principle to retail and all other developments for town centre uses. To help achieve sustainable economic growth the Governments objectives for planning are to: build prosperous communities reduce the gap in economic growth rates between regions, promoting regeneration

and tackling deprivation deliver more sustainable patterns of development promote vitality and viability of town and other centres as important places for

communities (para 10) Policy EC4.1 states that LPAs should proactively plan to promote competitive town centre environments and provide consumer choice through a range of means including identifying sites in the centre capable of accommodating larger format developments where a need for such a development has been identified. Proposals for retail and town centre uses should be located in an existing centre and accord with an up to date Development Plan. Otherwise they must satisfy the „sequential approach‟ and the „significant adverse impact tests‟ before their positive and negative impacts and other material considerations are assessed. PPS 5: Planning for the historic environment – PPS 5 states that the significance of a heritage asset (whether designated or un-designated) should be established (policy HE 6.1) and an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the significance should be provided (policy HE 6.2). Local Planning Authorities should take into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of Heritage Assets, and of utilising their positive role in place shaping (policy HE 7.4), and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to character and local distinctiveness.

There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification (Policy HE 9.1). Policy HE 9.2 states:

Where the application will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance local planning authorities should refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that:

(i) the substantial harm to or loss of significance is necessary in order to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss; or

(ii) (a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term that will enable its conservation; and

(c )conservation through grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is not possible; and

(d) the harm to or loss of the heritage asset is outweighed by the benefits of bringing the site back into use.

Policy HE 9.4 states:

Where a proposal has a harmful impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset which is less than substantial harm, in all cases local planning authorities should:

(i) weigh the public benefit of the proposal (for example, that it helps to secure the optimum viable use of the heritage asset in the interests of its long-term conservation) against the harm; and

(ii) recognise that the greater the harm to the significance of the heritage asset the greater the justification will be needed for any loss.

Policy HE9.5 of PPS5 notes that not all elements of a Conservation Area will necessarily contribute to its significance. It notes: "When considering proposals, local planning authorities should take into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the ...Conservation Area as a whole. Where an element does not positively contribute to its significance, local planning authorities should take into account the desirability of enhancing or better revealing the significance of the …Conservation Area, including where appropriate, through development of that element. This should be seen as part of the process of place-shaping." Where elements are considered to positively contribute to a conservation area, development that would harm their significance will need to be assessed against the tests set out in Policy HE9 (either HE9.2 and or HE9.4). Where development affects the setting of a heritage asset, applications should seek to conserve "…those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the heritage asset" (Policy HE10). PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – PPS 9 was published in August 2005 and it identifies the Government‟s broad aim that: “… development … should have minimal impacts on biodiversity and enhance it wherever possible.‟‟ (page 2).

PPG13: Transport – PPG 13 sets out the Government‟s objectives on transport. The key objectives, set out at paragraph 4 are to integrate planning and transport, in order to: promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight; promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public

transport; and reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

Paragraph 6 states that in order to deliver these objectives, when preparing development plans and considering planning applications, local authorities should, among other things, ensure that development comprising jobs, shopping, leisure and services offers a realistic choice of access by public transport, walking and cycling. The Guidance advises that planning policies should seek to promote the vitality and viability of existing town centres, which should be the preferred locations for new retail and leisure developments. PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk - Sets out Government policy on the location of development taking account of the known flood risk and sets out the requirement for the production by applicants of a Flood Risk Assessment which takes account of all potential sources of flooding, the probability of a flood event occurring and the mitigating measures which could be put in place to reduce the relative risks to people and property.

A risk based Sequential Test should be applied at all stages of planning with the aim of steering new development, as far as is reasonable, to areas at the lowest risk of flooding.

Draft National Planning Policy Framework The PPS/PPG guidance set out above relates to adopted Government policy and the current Government has now published new draft guidance which is currently out for consultation. This seeks to establish a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Ministerial foreword to the document states that “development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay” and then states that local planning authorities should “grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date.” (para. 14) The draft NPPF contains specific reference to Development Management, stating that to enable each local authority to fulfil their planning role, and to actively promote sustainable development, “local planning authorities need to: - approach development management decisions positively – looking for solutions

rather than problems so that applications can be approved wherever it is practical to do so

- attach significant weight to the benefits of economic and housing growth - influence development proposals to achieve quality outcomes - enable the delivery of sustainable development proposals” In addition, the recent Ministerial Statement: Planning for Growth is also a material planning consideration and states that “the Government‟s top priority in reforming the planning system is to promote sustainable economic growth and jobs. Government‟s clear expectation is that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be „yes,‟ except where this would compromise key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy.”

Development Plan Policy The Development Plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands adopted in March 2009 and the City of Lincoln Local Plan adopted in August 1998. Regional Planning Policy Within the East Midlands Regional Plan (EMRP) Lincoln is part of the Lincoln Policy Area Sub Region and the built up parts of Lincoln City is part of a defined Lincoln Principal Urban Area (PUA). PUA‟s are defined as areas that can develop into sustainable urban communities where people will wish to work, live and invest. The EMRP states that the Lincoln Policy Area Sub-Regional Strategy (SRS) reflects the need for continued and varied employment development opportunities to enhance competitiveness, prosperity and attractiveness to increase investment. As such both regeneration initiatives and appropriate and selective strategic new site development are promoted. In terms of site selection, Lincoln Policy Area SRS2 states that Central Lincoln is the most appropriate location for new development where it is accessible to local facilities, and well served or capable of being well served by public transport and/or it is within convenient walking or cycling distance of Central Lincoln. The Localism Bill proposes to formally remove the Regional Plan. The evidence base will remain relevant but members may wish to consider the weight they give to the Regional Plan policies. City of Lincoln Local Plan The saved planning policies of relevance to this application are: Policy 1 – Location of Developments Attracting Large Numbers of People This policy seeks to direct development which will attract large numbers of people to the most accessible locations within the urban area with a choice of transport options. Policy 6 – Public Transport Facilities This policy states that planning permission will be granted for development required to improve the integration, efficiency, accessibility, safety, convenience and comfort of public transport stations in the City Centre, subject to compliance with policies relating to Urban Regeneration, the Built Environment and Open Space. Policy 8B – Parking and servicing provision in Central Lincoln The application site is within the Central Lincoln Parking Zone and Policy 8B states that planning permission will only be granted for developments involving the provision of public or non-operational car parking spaces if such provision is entirely consistent with this Plan‟s objectives for Access, Transport and Communications, and will not harm the character, appearance or amenity of the locality Policy 8C – Management Regimes for publicly available car parks This policy states that planning permission will be granted for car parks (for use by customers, staff, visitors or the general public) which are in accordance with the requirements of Policy 8B, provided that the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that a management regime which is consistent with the Local Plan‟s Parking Strategy will be operated.

Policy 18 – Development in Mixed-Use Areas This policy outlines a broad range of uses and activities which will be encouraged in Mixed-use Areas. As the site is within the Central Mixed-Use Area, schedule A of this policy outlines acceptable uses subject to a number of requirements as detailed within the policy Policy 34 – Design and Amenity Standards This policy deals specifically with matters of design stating that “the scale, massing, height, design, external appearance and facing materials to be used in…development must complement the architectural style and townscape character of the locality” Policy 35 – Design of New Residential Areas This policy refers to the design of residential development and states that planning permission will be granted provided the local planning authority is satisfied the environment created will have a strong sense of local identity and will be safe, secure, pleasant, sustainable, efficient to live and move around in, efficient and reasonably economical to build, in harmony with its surroundings and accessible to all. Policy 41 – Energy Efficiency Policy 55 – “Long” views into and out of the City This policy seeks to protect views of the historic hillside from a series of vantage points as outlined within the policy

Policy 56A – New Housing (self contained) This policy identifies sites for residential development and also states that planning permission will be granted for new self contained housing in mixed use areas provided that it can be accommodated with the other uses. Policy 72A – Shopping Streets This policy states that within those parts of the Central Mixed-Use Area shown on the proposals map as shopping streets (such as Sincil Street) planning permission will be granted for use classes A1 – A5 provided that class A1 (retail) remains the predominant use and the vitality and viability of the shopping street is not harmed Policy 72B – Major Retailing Provision in the Central Shopping Core and Edge-of-Centre Locations This policy states that planning permission will be granted for major new retail development within the Centre Shopping Core. Major retail development is defined as development with a gross retail floorspace of 2,500 sq m or more. Local Development Framework The Local Development Framework for Central Lincolnshire is at an early stage but the Core Strategy, as stated above, supports the growth of the City envisaged by the Regional Plan and is due to be published for consultation in 2012. A full assessment of the principle of the development in respect of the emerging polices of the Core Strategy together with the findings of the draft central Lincolnshire City and Town Centre study November 2011 forms a separate appendix to this report.

Supplementary Planning Documents and Other Relevant Local Policy Documents In addition, there are three local policy documents which are also relevant to the consideration of the issues raised by the proposals: Planning Advice Note 21: Affordable Housing – requires the provision of affordable housing for sites of 15 dwellings or more at a rate of 20%. Whilst the application is in outline form in respect of the residential element of the proposals, the indicative layout of 50 dwellings would result in a requirement for 10 of the dwellings to be affordable. Green Design in Planning Supplementary Planning Guidance The Green Design guide was published in 2000 to provide detailed guidance for developers on how to achieve a more sustainable approach to development. Lincoln Policy Area Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – provides up to date (2010) information in respect of flood risk modelling for the Lincoln Policy Area and has been used in the applicants Flood Risk assessment Central Lincolnshire Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment – refers to the housing figures in the Regional Plan and the Core Strategy of the Central Lincolnshire Local Development Framework. It is regularly updated in respect of the requirement to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. It currently demonstrates the provision of approximately four years supply of housing land for the Lincoln Principal Urban Area. City Centre Masterplan – Linking Lincoln: Enquiry by Design and subsequent City Centre and Lindongate Workshop Report – Although not supplementary planning guidance with formal planning status, as adopted Council policy the City Centre Masterplan seeks to provide an over arching vision for the longer term development of the City Centre and its immediate surrounding area. This identifies a number of key „intervention sites‟ where briefs have been proposed and both Lindongate (Site C5) and the Station Crossing (Site C6) were identified as key intervention sites. As well as the briefs for the intervention sites, the Masterplan also included a City Centre Retail Strategy. In addition and subsequent to the production of a the Masterplan, a further workshop was held in January 2007 to revisit the principles established by the original Masterplan, but which also specifically focused on the emerging plans for Lindongate at that time. The original design brief was further revised as a result. Retail and Town Centre Study (GVA Grimley, 2007) and the Draft Central Lincolnshire City and Town Centre Study (WYG, 2011) – City Council commissioned retail studies which provide an evidence base for new planning policies for retail development. Lincoln Townscape Assessment – Provides an assessment of local character areas within the City City of Lincoln Strategic Priorities A number of the priorities set out in the Council‟s Strategic Plan are relevant to the consideration of this application: reduce poverty and disadvantage seek to increase the supply of affordable housing to buy or rent reduce Lincoln‟s carbon footprint

Appendix Two The Principle of the Development in Respect of the Emerging Polices of the Core Strategy and the Draft Central Lincolnshire City and Town Centre Study November 2011

Contact: Michael Braithwaite Tel: 01529 308043 Email: mike.braithwaite@central-lincs.org.uk 14th February 2012 Dear Mr Manning/Mr Foster, Re: Planning Application 2008/0641/O – „Lindongate‟. I write with reference to the above planning application. The following response relates to the principle of the scale of development in respect of the emerging policies of the Central Lincolnshire Core Strategy together with the findings of the draft Central Lincolnshire City and Town Centres Study November 2011 and no assessment has been undertaken of the details of the proposals. The Core Strategy‟s generic policies were considered by the Central Lincolnshire Joint Planning Committee at its meeting on January 9th 2012 and approved, subject to some amendments, for informal consultation. The emerging policies of the Core Strategy promote a sustainable growth strategy for Central Lincolnshire that plans to deliver an uplift in the levels of growth beyond that achieved historically in the area, to provide homes and jobs in line with identified needs, regenerate places and communities, and support necessary improvements to facilities, services and infrastructure. Lincoln will be the principal focus for this growth and the city centre is both a key driver for growth and essential to provide services to support the current and future population. Protecting and enhancing the role of the city centre is essential to ensure that facilities are located where they are accessible to all and contribute to wider sustainability objectives for reducing unnecessary car travel. Lincoln‟s city centre is the principal centre within Central Lincolnshire‟s hierarchy, having a wide range of facilities and performing a sub-regional role for visitors, including tourists. This is a continuation of the role for the city centre identified in the Regional Plan, saved City of Lincoln Local Plan and the former Lincolnshire Structure Plan. At the same time, the emerging Core Strategy recognises the importance of retailing and other town centre activities to the livelihoods of individual residents and to the overall economy of the area. In line with national planning policy, the draft „Retail and Town Centres‟ policy therefore seeks to protect and enhance Central Lincolnshire‟s retail centres by focussing most new retail and related development on them, subject to the scale and nature of the development being appropriate to the role of the centre within a defined hierarchy.

To support the above approach the Central Lincolnshire Authorities have commissioned the Central Lincolnshire City and Town Centres Study to update the retail studies prepared by the partner authorities. This study, which will be considered by the Joint Committee at its meeting in April 2012, will provide the robust evidence base to the Core Strategy in respect of retailing and commercial leisure uses, including an assessment of future capacity for retail development. The draft study considers that Lincoln currently performs strongly in terms of its market share, accommodating a wide range of comparison and convenience goods retailers. However, in order to support the level of growth being planned for through the Core Strategy (assuming the existing market share and a 5% turnover derived from inflow from outside the study area is maintained and rolled forward, and taking into account extant commitments) the Study identifies a need for significant additional comparison and convenience goods floorspace over the Plan period. In the short to medium term, to 2021, the Lindongate proposals would appear to enable a significant proportion of the comparison need to be met, helping the city centre to continue to evolve to ensure that its role is maintained and enhanced as Central Lincolnshire grows. In addition the scheme also provides the opportunity to improve the existing bus and rail stations through the creation of a single interchange at one of the most important gateways into the city and encourage the use of more sustainable travel modes, which concurs with the aims of the Core Strategy‟s draft Transport policy. It should be noted that the Core Strategy aims to support the regeneration strategy and initiatives of the City Centre Masterplan which seeks to improve the City Centre in order to encourage visitors and inward investment, particularly through intervention sites, such as the Lindongate site. The Lindongate proposal has been identified in the draft City and Town Centres Study as the city‟s principal redevelopment opportunity. The provision of a modern department store is seen as an opportunity to significantly improve the qualitative comparison offer of the City Centre in accordance with the long term aspirations of growth. According to the draft findings of the study it will be essential to undertake an assessment of the numbers of relatively small units currently being proposed and whether these will cater appropriately for the needs of retailers, the current trend being for larger units that enable more efficient use of floorspace. Furthermore, the consultants also advise that similar schemes elsewhere in the country are currently dependent on the inclusion of an element of food retail to ensure their viability, and in their view such a revision to the current scheme could potentially assist in bringing the wider opportunity forward. In conclusion, Lincoln‟s city centre is the principal centre for retailing and other associated uses within Central Lincolnshire and with the high levels of growth being promoted for Lincoln and the wider area through the emerging policies of the Core Strategy, it is essential that appropriate opportunities are realized in Lincoln‟s city centre that will enable it to both maintain its role as a key driver for growth and provider of services to support the current and future population. Lindongate provides the key opportunity at the present time to enhance the city centre‟s retail offer and the creation of a single interchange should contribute to encouraging the shift towards more sustainable modes of transport. As such the scheme is supported in general terms, although, based on the findings of the draft City and Town Centres Study, with some reservations regarding the sizes and mix of units. Yours sincerely, Mike Braithwaite, Head of the Central Lincolnshire Joint Planning Unit

Appendix 3 – Scale Parameter Plan

Appendix 4 – Phasing Plan

Phase Development proposed

1 Highway and associated works to re-align Norman Street, Oxford Street and St Mary‟s Street. Construction of new bus station adjacent to railway station. Re-provision of existing car parking spaces off site where necessary. Construction of new railway footbridge plus the demolition of the former hotel between St. Mary‟s Street and Norman Street.

2 Site clearance, site preparation, construction of Block E to provide car parking and bus lay-over space. Surface and foul drainage infrastructure to Block E. Works required to the Sincil Dyke beneath the footprint of Block E.

3 Demolition of existing Co-op store, existing bus station and Sincil Street properties.

4 Construction of Blocks A, B, C and D

Overall period of construction

30 months

Assumed finish on site

2015

Appendix 5 – Selected Consultation Responses Highways Agency

Environment Agency Lincoln City Council Planning Policy City Hall Beaumont Fee Lincoln Lincolnshire LN1 1DF FAO Mr Mark Foster & Mr Kieron Manning

Our ref: AN/2008/106321/03-L01 Your ref: 2008/0641/O Date: 21 February 2012

Dear Sirs Demolition of the existing bus station, roof top car park, city square centre including retail units at 48 Sincil Street and fronting Waterside South, former Oxford Hall Hotel, Nos. 18-23, 30a, 31 (plus various buildings/extensions to the rear) and 47 Sincil Street, Nos. 2-3 Norman Street, the station store, pedestrian footbridge and station wall. Erection of a mixed use development (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and C3 uses and other ancillary uses), a new bus station and facilities building, multi storey car park, footbridge over railway lines and highway, infrastructure and public realm works and other associated works. (Revised description) (Outline) Land bounded by Waterside South, Melville Street, Oxford Street, St Mary's Street and Sincil Street, Lincoln I refer to my previous letters dated 3 November 2008 and 21 December 2011 relating to our objection to this proposal on flood risk grounds. I can confirm that we have since received further Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) information submitted to support the application. We consider that the details in the FRA are now compliant with Annex E of Planning Policy Statement 25 'Development and Flood Risk' (PPS25), and these are considered appropriate for the scale and nature of the proposed development. Please note that our advice has not considered the risk of flooding from ground water, drainage systems, reservoirs, canals or ordinary watercourses. The Local Planning Authority will therefore need to be satisfied that the proposed development is also in accordance with other requirements of PPS25 'Development and Flood Risk'. Accordingly, the Environment Agency is prepared to WITHDRAW its previous objection, subject to the imposition of the following planning conditions to ensure that flood risk is adequately mitigated for the lifetime of the development. Condition 1 Development shall not begin until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. Reason 1 To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve

habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system. Condition 2 No development shall commence until details of the precise location, construction method and material specification for the bus station waiting area and canopy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall proceed strictly in accordance with the approved details. Reason 2 To protect the integrity of the underlying culvert and to ensure adequate maintenance can be carried out to prevent the risk of flooding. Condition 3 No development of Block E, as shown on drawing no. 06-021 PL-105, shall be commenced until the culvert of the Sincil Dyke has been replaced and certified complete by the Local Planning Authority. Reason 3 To prevent the risk of flooding during the lifetime of the development. Potential land contamination I would also refer you to our previous letter of 8 November 2008, in which we requested the imposition of a planning condition in respect of potential land contamination. The requested condition is repeated below for completeness: Condition 4 Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority: 1) A site investigation scheme, based on the recommendations of the Phase 1 Study and Environmental Statement, to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 2) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (1) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 3) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (2) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason To ensure that a full site investigation is carried out to properly quantify the risks to groundwater. As you are aware the discharging of planning conditions rests with the Local Planning Authority. It is, therefore, essential that you are satisfied that the proposed draft conditions

meet the requirements of Circular 11/95 “Use of Conditions on Planning Permission”. Please notify us immediately if you are unable to apply our suggested conditions, as we may need to tailor our advice accordingly. Flood Defence Consent Informative Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and Land Drainage Byelaws, any works in, over, under or within 9.0 metres of the landward toe/brink of any Main River requires the prior written permission from the Environment Agency by way of a Flood Defence Consent. The applicant has been discussing the implications that the proposals have on the Sincil Dyke Main River and the details of the Consents that will be required. If the planning permission is granted there will still be a need to apply for Flood Defence Consent before any works over or adjacent to the Sincil Dyke can begin. Each Flood Defence Consent application can take a maximum of 2 months to determine. Should you require any additional information, or wish to discuss these matters further, please do not hesitate to contact Annette Hewitson on the number below. Yours faithfully Ben Thornely Area Planning & Corporate Services Manager

British Waterways

25 November 2011

Lincoln City Council

Planning Department

City Hall

Beaumont Fee

Lincoln

LN1 1DF

Dear Mr Mark Foster/Mr Kieron Manning The Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Application No: 2008/0641/O Proposal: Demolition of bus station, roof top car park & City Square Centre. Erection of a mixed use development (A1,2,3,4,5 & C3), bus station, multi storey car park, footbridge over railway lines & highway, infrastructure & public realm works-revised description Location: Land bounded by Waterside South, Melville/Oxford/St Marys &, Sincil Streets, Lincoln, Lincolnshire Waterway: River Witham Thank you for your consultation dated 04 November 2011 in respect of the above. British Waterways (BW) is a public body set up to maintain and develop the network of canals and other inland waterways in a sustainable manner so that they fulfil their full economic, social and environmental potential. In addition to statutory navigation and safety functions, British Waterways has to:

Conserve our waterway heritage and environment

Promote and enable rural and urban regeneration

Maintain and enhance leisure, recreation, tourism and education opportunities for the general public and

Facilitate waterway transport After due consideration of the application details, British Waterways has no objections to the proposed development, subject to the imposition of suitably worded conditions relating to the following matters: Drainage We note that the detailed drainage arrangements do not appear to have been finalised at this stage, and would suggest that they be secured by condition. We would advise that the River Witham is owned and managed by British Waterways, and as such, if any additional outfall to the river is proposed as part of the scheme, BW‟s prior consent would be required, and this would need to be in the form of a commercial agreement. Should additional discharges to the river be proposed to discharge any drainage condition, we would ask that we are consulted on the details. Condition No development shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of surface water drainage from the site together with a timetable for it‟s implementation has first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter only be carried out in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Our Ref BWYS-PLAN-2011-09637-1

Your Ref 2008/0641/O

Reason To ensure the provision of satisfactory means of surface water drainage from the site in the interests of minimising the risk of flooding of the site and adjoining land. Pollution/Land Contamination We note that the ES identifies the need for further investigative work as part of an overall mitigation strategy, and we would ask that this be secured by condition to ensure that any risk of pollution of the River Witham are minimised. Condition The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with the mitigation strategy identified in Chapter 13 of the Environmental Statement (2008) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To minimise the risk of pollution of the local water environment and the River Witham adjacent to the north of the application site. Other Matters We would comment that the Applicant may wish to consider the possibility of using water from the river for cooling as an energy saving/efficiency measure as part of the development. The Applicant should contact the Water Sales Account Manager on 01923 201364 for further advice if they wish to explore this option further. The application site lies close to the south bank of the River Witham which, as noted above, is owned and managed by British Waterways. If any works are proposed which affect or are likely to affect the river, it is important that prior consultation is carried out with BW, and therefore if the Council is minded to grant planning permission, it is requested that the following informative is attached to the decision notice: “The applicant/developer is advised to contact the Works Engineers Team at the Fazeley Office on 01827 252000, in order to ensure that any necessary consents are obtained and the works are compliant with the current British Waterways’ “Code of Practice for Works affecting British Waterways”.

In addition, in order for British Waterways to effectively monitor our role as a statutory consultee, please send me a copy of the decision notice and the requirements of any planning obligation. Should you have any queries please contact me at this office. Yours sincerely Ian Dickinson Area Planner (East and West Midlands) Telephone: 01636 675790 E-Mail: ian.dickinson@britishwaterways.co.uk

Network Rail Dear Mr Manning In relation to the planning application, listed building consent and conservation area consent applications for the Lindongate re-development, we have a number of observations to make. We recognise that it is in outline stage and some matters below may be covered in subsequent reserved matters applications, but there are some key principles that need to be established at the outset. Firstly we are supportive of the scheme overall, recognising in particular the creation of a better public transport interchange adjacent to the railway station. However our first concern is in relation to the loss of long term car parking for the station itself. Under the terms of the Licence conditions with the Office of Rail Regulation the loss of station facilities (including car parking) can only be sanctioned if a replacement facility, to at least the same level, is provided before the original facility is lost. Although the application indicates that a maximum of 150 spaces will be made available in what we presume will be the proposed multi storey car park, no actual indication of where this will be or how it would be administered is made. We have stated previously that our preference would be for a replacement car park as a surface level site on the south side of the station linked to the station front by an Equality Act compliant new bridge. In effect we swap our site for part of the Council car park south of the railway without restrictions, as this then gives us scope to expand facilities on the south side of the station This also has the advantage of being closer to the railway station than the would mean one move from the existing site once the new bridge had been built. Access to the car park would be from Tentercroft St or eventually the new East-West link road, once built. If our preferred solution of a car park swap cannot be achieved we require a single permanent move into spaces within a new MSCP close to the Pelham St flyover and on the north side of the railway line. The spaces should be allocated at ground level, and linked to the station by good quality pedestrian route on the adjoining highway. There would also need to be an interim arrangement for temporary car park accommodation, agreed with the train operating company, if the existing car park has to be vacated to enable the bus station to be built prior to new MSCP spaces being available. Again we must emphasise the Regulatory procedures that have to be put in place before the loss of such facilities can be sanctioned, including the need to gain approval from the Regulator through a process known as Station Change.

In relation to the new footbridge over the railway our first consideration is that the existing structure is removed and all necessary stopping up orders are secured prior to the demolition of the structure. In terms of the design of the new footbridge we presume the detail can be left as a reserved matter. However there will need to be close liaison with our structures engineers as to the correct form of design to be applied at this location and the developer is urged to contact NR at the earliest opportunity if they have not already done so to progress this matter further. In terms of future maintenance it is assumed that this would become a Highway Authority structure maintained at the public‟s expense. However clearly if it formed the access to the station car park at Tentercroft then NR would have an interest and hence join in a debate regarding ownership and maintenance.

In terms of the design of the station forecourt and bus interchange area, we feel there is a missed opportunity to create a better design of square between bus station and railway station forecourt, by increasing the pedestrian area in front of the station, making a better use of space and a better visual arrival into the town, as well as giving more prominence to the listed building itself and further integration between rail and bus stations. . A suggested amendment is given on the attached plan. As part of the proposals there is also need to be a high quality pedestrian crossing to link this square with retail development north of St Marys Street. This would of course need a re-design of the forecourt to cater for existing needs – e.g. disabled spaces, drop-off, short-stay, deliveries, taxis, BTP spaces etc. In terms of the station wall adjacent to the proposed bus station, we have no particular observations to make. However you should note that as part of the demolition prior notification recently submitted for the demolition of the former maintenance unit buildings in the station the wall is to be dismantled to facilitate demolition, and then re-erected on the same line using as far as possible the same materials. At this stage it is still unclear whether the TOC require the single storey building adjacent to the bay platform which they currently use for storage. However on the basis that it is an existing facility its replacement is required. Finally there is provision on the plans (as far as I have briefly seen) for a maintenance access onto the station platform in the vicinity of the existing lift towers. However because of the problems with the Council‟s website I have been unable to ascertain from any drawings what width this access is. It is our preference for the access to be wide enough to admit an emergency vehicle but as I cannot see what the proposed width of this access is I have to request that it is at least 12 ft wide. Please let me know if you require any further information. Yours Faithfully Tony Rivero Senior Town Planner LNE

Lincolnshire County Council Highways

LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

DIRECTORATE OF COMMUNITIES FINAL To: CITY OF LINCOLN COUNCIL Application Ref: 2008/0641/O

With reference to this application dated, 01/09/2008 relating to the following proposed development Address or location National Grid ref: Horizontal Vertical LINDONGATE, LAND BOUNDED BY WATERSIDE SOUTH, MELVILLE STREET, OXFORD STREET/ST MARYS STREET AND SINCIL STREET, LINCOLN – PARK WARD

Classification/Number of road to which the site gains access. Date application referred by LPA 16/09/2008 Type of application: Outline/Full/RM/ OUTLINE Description of development AMENDED DESCRIPTION (NATHANIEL LITCHFIELD & PARTNERS – ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT ADDENDUM OCTOBER 2011) – THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING BUS STATION, MULTI STOREY CAR PARK, CITY SQUARE CENTRE INCLUDING RETAIL UNITS AT 48 SINCIL STREET AND FRONTING WATERSIDE SOUTH, FORMER OXFORD HALL HOTEL, NOS 18-23, 30A, 31 (PLUS VARIOUS BUILDINGS/EXTENSIONS TO THE REAR) AND 47 SINCIL STREET, NOS 2-3 NORMAN STREET, THE STATION STORE, PEDESTRIAN FOOTBRIDGE AND STATION WALL AND ERECTION OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (A1, A3, A4, A5, C3 USES AND OTHER ANCILLARY USES) PLUS A NEW BUS STATION (AND FACILITIES BUILDING), MULTI-STOREY CAR PARKING, FOOTBRIDGE OVER RAILWAY LINES, HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC REALM WORKS AND OTHER ASSOCIATED WORKS. Notice is hereby given under the provisions of article 15 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, that the County Council as local highway authority:-

Does not wish to restrict the grant of permission. Requests that any permission given by the local planning authority shall include the

conditions below. Requests that local planning authority refuses the application for the reasons set out

below. Requests that the local planning authority request the applicants to provide additional information as set out below.

CONDITIONS (INCLUDING REASONS) /ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED / REASONS FOR

REFUSAL HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS: Following recent discussions with the development team (in particular the meeting held on 7

th February 2012), the

proposed new road layouts (details as submitted on Lyons+Sleeman+Hoare Architects drawing 06-021 PL-105A) required amending. In particular, the proposed new road junction at St Marys Street/Norman Street/Oxford Street, the proposed new road layout – Oxford Street/Pelham Street gyratory, the proposed pedestrian crossing at Thornbridge/Melville Street, and pedestrian access to the south side of Oxford Street and St Marys Street including the rear of the bus interchange.

Proposed New Road Junction at St Marys Street/Norman Street/Oxford Street: Following a review of the form of junction as submitted, the highway authority undertook a validation exercise to consider priorities, capacity, pedestrian movement and safety. The validation exercise identified numerous concerns with the submitted design. The highway authority concluded that the most appropriate form of junction should be a signal controlled junction. This conclusion was presented to the development team for consideration. Following consideration, the highway authority is now in receipt of drawing TCL-SK1183_09 dated Feb 2012. The proposed details in relation to the proposed new road junction at St Marys Street/Norman Street/Oxford Street (drawing TCL-SK1183_09 dated Feb 2012) are now acceptable to the highway authority. Suggested Planning Condition:

1. Development shall not begin until full details of the proposed new highways (shown indicatively on drawing TCL-SK1183_09 dated Feb 2012) have been approved in writing by the local planning authority; and no buildings shall be occupied until the proposed new highways have been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Proposed New Road Layout – Oxford Street/Pelham Street Gyratory: The highway authority raised safety concerns relating to the proposed right turn movement, immediately west of the proposed access to the proposed bus layover area. Following discussion with the development team, given that the proposal was only to facilitate south bound traffic egressing Siemens, it was concluded that the proposed right turn movement should be removed from the proposals on safety grounds. The highway authority is now in receipt of drawing TCL-SK1183_09 dated Feb 2012. The proposed details in relation to the new road layout – Oxford street/Pelham Street gyratory (drawing TCL-SK1183_09 dated Feb 2012) are now acceptable to the highway authority. Suggested Planning Condition:

2. Development shall not begin until full details of the proposed new highways (shown indicatively on drawing TCL-SK1183_09 dated Feb 2012) have been approved in writing by the local planning authority; and no buildings shall be occupied until the proposed new highways have been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Proposed Pedestrian Crossing at Thornbridge/Melville Street: The original submission included the proposed replacement of the existing footbridge with an indicative at-grade controlled crossing. The highway authority undertook a design audit on the proposal (position of at-grade crossing indicatively shown on drawing 06-021 PL-107A) and concluded that the design did not meet the general requirements as set out in the national design standards, which included the proximity of the side road junctions, and the lack of pedestrian facilities north of Waterside South and south of Waterside North. In order, to try and deliver an at-grade crossing the highway authority has been involved in detailed discussions with Turvey Consultancy Limited. Various options have been submitted and discussed, but none of the proposals are able to meet all design and safety requirements. The main issues relating to the at-grade crossing in a location south of Waterside South is the forward visibility travelling south bound on Broadgate (restricted by Thornbridge). In order to meet the desirable minimum sight stopping distances, required by national standards, it locates the at-grade crossing approximately 90.0m south of Thornbridge. The sight stopping distances have been obtained from the Design Manual for Road and Bridges (TD9/93) as this is deemed the most appropriate design document, as opposed to Manual for Streets, as Broadgate is essentially a road (and not a street) as its main function is accommodating the movement of motor traffic. This distance of 90.0m is deemed unsuitable by the highway authority as it locates the crossing point to far away from the pedestrian desire line, and in close a proximity to the existing at-grade controlled crossing adjacent to Newton Street. Therefore, an at-grade controlled crossing could not be supported by the highway authority, and we would have no alternative but to recommend refusal of the proposal on highway safety grounds. Suggested Planning Condition:

3. Development shall not begin until a scheme for the modification of the existing footbridge (as shown indicatively on drawings TCL-SK1183_08 and TCL-SK1183_09) has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Note to planning officer: The development proposals will necessitate part of the existing highway to be stopped up, and the provision of an alternative highway for use as a replacement. The developer shall be required to make an application under the

Town and Country Planning Act. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that an application is submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions (the Secretary of State) requesting that he make the relevant Orders relating to this matter. Pedestrian Access to the South Side of Oxford Street and St Marys Street Including the Rear of the Bus Interchange: The highway authority raised its concerns relating to the lack of safe provision for pedestrians. Given that pedestrian facilities exist to the south side of Oxford Street and St Marys Street, and that suitable pedestrian access is necessary between the public transport interchange and the employment premises fronting Pelham Street and Newton Street, the highway authority requested the inclusion of a footway. The highway authority is now in receipt of drawing TCL-SK1183_09 dated Feb 2012. The proposed details in relation to pedestrian access to the south side of Oxford Street and St Marys Street including the rear of the bus interchange (drawing TCL-SK1183_09 dated Feb 2012) are now acceptable to the highway authority. Suggested Planning Condition:

4. Development shall not begin until a scheme has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority for the construction of a 2.0 metre wide footway (shown indicatively on drawing TCL-SK1183_09 dated Feb 2012), together with arrangements for the disposal of surface water run-off; and no buildings shall be occupied until the 2.0 metre wide footway has been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Note to planning officer: As implied at recent meetings, it us likely, given land ownership, that a section of the proposed footway (to the rear of the bus interchange) will not be offered for adoption to the highway authority. Should this be the case you are requested to ensure (possibly via a Section 106 agreement) that for the life of the development suitable mechanisms are secured in relation to the continued availability of the route, maintenance etc. CREATION OF NEW HIGHWAYS/STREETS: Suggested Planning Condition:

5. Development shall not begin until a scheme has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority for the creation of the new highways/streets (shown indicatively as Norman Place, Sincil Lane and River Street on drawing TCL-SK1183_09 dated Feb 2012); and no buildings shall be occupied until the new highways/streets have been constructed to a specification to enable them to be adopted as highways maintainable at the public expense.

STOPPING UP EXISTING HIGHWAYS: Note to planning officer: In order for the developer to deliver the proposed development a number of changes will be required to existing highways. The developer shall be required to make an application under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to authorise the removal (stopping up) of the affected highways. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that an application is submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions (the Secretary of State) requesting that he make an Order authorising the stopping up of the relevant highways. SERVICING: Suggested Planning Condition:

6. Development shall not begin until a scheme has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority for the provision of service areas for Blocks A and D, including associated access arrangements/details (as shown indicatively on drawing 06-021 PL-108A, TCL-SK1183_003 and Annexe 8 of the Turvey Consultancy Limited Transport Assessment); and no buildings shall be occupied until the agreed details have been constructed.

7. Development shall not begin until a scheme has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority for

the servicing arrangements for Blocks B and C, Waterside South and Sincil Street; and no buildings shall be occupied until the agreed details have been implemented.

8. Development shall not begin until a scheme has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority for

the access/egress arrangements for the existing parking/servicing area to the rear of 1-19 St Marys Street; and no buildings shall be occupied until the agreed details have been implemented

PARKING: The proposed car parking numbers 850-900 do not exceed the highway authority’s maximum standards. However, the developer has stated in the submitted Transport Assessment that cycle parking facilities throughout the scheme will be included in the detailed design to provide a net benefit. Suggested Planning Condition:

9. No building shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site (as shown indicatively on drawings 06-021 PL-123, 06-021 PL-124, 06-021 PL-125, 06-021 PL-126 and 06-021 PL-127) for cars to be parked and to enable vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in a forward gear.

10. Development shall not commence until details of the proposed cycle parking have been approved in writing

by the local planning authority; and the buildings shall not be occupied until the proposed cycle parking has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

11. Development shall not commence until details of the proposed parking signage strategy have been

approved in writing by the local planning authority; and the proposed car park shall not be operational until the approved details have been constructed.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE (INCLUDING DIAL-A-RIDE AND SHOPMOBILITY): The public transport interchange has been the subject of numerous discussions within the development team, and numerous design/layout amendments have ensued. It is the highway authority’s assumption that the bus station shall be leased to the City of Lincoln Council, and bus services operated by Stagecoach. Therefore, the highway authority’s assessment of this proposal has been focussed on the access and egress of passenger vehicles at the facility. The developer has demonstrated that the proposed access arrangements and turning space within the curtilage are acceptable. Therefore, the highway authority is in support of the design as proposed. Suggested Planning Conditions:

12. Development shall not commence until details of the proposed public transport interchange have been approved in writing by the local planning authority; and the buildings shall not be occupied until the proposed public transport interchange has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE / FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT: Suggested Planning Condition:

13. Development shall not begin until surface water drainage works have been carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Note to planning officer: Given the lack of predominance of sustainable drainage from the proposals, and in view of the forthcoming changes in legislation, the developer is to be made aware of the likely responsibility to provide sustainable urban drainage systems for the development. TRAVEL PLAN: Suggested Planning Condition:

14. Development shall not begin until a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Those parts of the approved Travel Plan that are identified as being capable of implementation after occupation shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable contained therein and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied. Reason: In order that the local planning authority conforms to the requirements of PPG13 Transport, a Travel Plan has been conditioned to ensure that access to the site is sustainable and reduces dependency on the car.

TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS: Note to planning officer: The proposed development will necessitate the need for a review of the existing traffic regulation orders, and the implementation of new orders to accommodate the development. The planning authority is requested (possibly via a Section 106 agreement) to ensure that all costs associated with these works will be covered by the developer. FOOTBRIDGE OVER RAILWAY LINES: Suggested Planning Condition:

15. Development shall not begin until a scheme for the erection of a new footbridge (as shown indicatively on drawings 06-021 PL-106A and 06-021 PL-141A) has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Note to planning officer: The development proposals will necessitate the existing restricted byway to be stopped up, and the provision of an alternative highway for use as a replacement. The developer shall be required to make an application under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that an application is submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions (the Secretary of State) requesting that he make the relevant Orders relating to this matter. As lifts have been proposed in association with the new footbridge, and the highway authority will not be responsible for the ownership/maintenance etc of the lifts, you are requested to ensure (possibly via a Section 106 agreement) that for the life of the development suitable mechanisms are secured in relation to the continued availability of the lifts, maintenance etc. SECTION 278 NOTE: The highway improvement works referred to in conditions 1-4 are required to be carried out by means of an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 between the County Council as Highway Authority and the landowner. It is County Council policy to carry out the detailed engineering design and supervision of Section 278 works and the subsequent preparation of tender/contract documents (subject to work load constraints). Please contact the County Council’s Technical Services Partnership (01522-552902) for further information. Date: 24/02/2012 Signed: ...Warren Peppard.................................................. Continuation ....Yes/No for Executive Director for Communities Form No HPD/1