DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE Agenda Item 9 22 June 2010 APPLICATION NUMBER : CA//10/00241/VAR PROPOSAL : Removal of conditions 13 and 14 of planning permission CA/08/0158/CAN relating to landscaping and planting. LOCATION OF SITE : The Beaney Institute, High Street and part of car park and Kingsbridge Villas, 14/15 Best Lane, Canterbury APPLICATION TYPE : VARIATION OR DELETION OF CONDITION(S) DATE REGISTERED : 09 March 2010 GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE TARGET DATE : 04 May 2010 CONTACT OFFICER : Katie Miller CONSERVATION AREA : CANTERBURY CITY No.1 - AMENDED LISTED BUILDING : GRADE 2 WARD : WESTGATE APPLICANT : Canterbury City Council AGENT : Sidell Gibson Architects SUMMARY: The application seeks permission for the removal of the conditions attached to the permission for the extension of the Beaney Institute that required landscaping, to include the provision of climbing plants and window boxes on the Best Lane elevation. A report, submitted by the Council's Landscape Architect/Urban Designer, advises that the landscaping is not appropriate due to limited space available for trees, potential damage to the building from climbing plants and window boxes not being appropriate to the form of building and difficulties with future maintenance. In lieu of the landscaping to the front of the building, two larger trees are proposed as part of some public realm enhancements along the south-western end of Best Lane and at its junction with the High Street. RECOMMENDATION: Grant. SITE DESCRIPTION The application sites lies in the heart of the City centre and comprises the Beaney Institute, which is accessed from the High Street, the site of Kingsbridge Villas (Nos. 14 and 15 Best Lane) and the Orange Street car park, to the rear of the Beaney. The Beaney is a Grade II listed building, completed in 1899. It is a substantial two-storey building with a half basement. The front facade facing the High Street comprises an eccentric assembly of materials and architectural forms and presents a highly crafted, modelled facade. A two-storey linear building was added to the rear in 1934 which in comparison to the original building has a very plain appearance. The building until recently contained the City's library and a museum. Internally, the original rooms are of generous proportion, reflecting the
civic status of the building. The building has now been emptied in preparation for the permitted extension and is closed to the public. Hoardings have been erected along the Best Lane elevation and entrance to the Orange Street car park and the archaeological investigations of the site are being undertaken. The Kingsbridge Villas are a pair of semi-detached brick-built Victorian houses. The houses are three storeys with a basement and the front facade is ornamental in design, incorporating bay windows, decorative string courses and interesting gablet features. The villas are in the same ownership and were until recently used for bed and breakfast accommodation, however now stand vacant and are shortly to be demolished as part of the approved scheme. The site is within the Canterbury City Conservation Area, an Area of Archaeological Importance and an Aquifer Protection Zone. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The application seeks permission for the removal of two conditions attached to the planning permission granted in 2008 for the extension of the Beaney Institute. These conditions relate to landscaping of the site to include tree and shrub planting and the provision of window boxes and climbing plants on the Best Lane elevation and state: 13 Before the development is commenced a scheme for the landscaping of the site to include the siting and specification of tree and shrub planting and to include the provision of 'window boxes' on the Best Lane elevation and climbing plants, together with details of the treatment of all hard surfaces shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. REASON: To ensure that the site is adequately landscaped in the interests of the appearance of the locality. 14 All planting comprised in the approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which are removed, die or become seriously damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted. REASON: To ensure that the site is adequately landscaped in the interests of the appearance of the locality. PLANNING HISTORY Planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent were granted in 2008 for the demolition of the Kingsbridge Villas and the erection of a three-storey extension to the rear of The Beaney Institute (Ref Nos CA/08/0158/CAN, CAL08/0012/CAN & CAC08/0002/CAN). PLANNING POLICIES Canterbury District Local Plan, First Review: BE1 - High quality designs, sustainable developments and specific design, amenity and landscape criteria to which the Council will have regard: cross-refers to Supplementary Planning Guidance documents. BE2 - Creation of successful public realm in major developments. BE5 - Preservation of listed & locally listed buildings and their settings. BE6 - Extensions to listed building to preserve special character. BE7 - Conservation Areas and their settings to be preserved or enhanced: specific criteria for consideration.
BE8 - Demolition of buildings in Conservation Areas. TC19 - Permission to be given for proposals that strengthen the characteristics and distinctiveness of the City, while those that weaken them will be resisted. South East Plan: BE1: Urban renaissance: strategy to enhance quality of life, including infrastructure planning. Promote design solutions relevant to specific context; build on local character/distinctiveness. Sensitive re-use of redundant/under-used buildings. Appropriateness of higher density & mixed use developments. Use of design led SPDs etc. BE6: Management of the historic environment: protect/conserve/enhance heritage assets and their contribution to local/regional distinctiveness; appropriate regeneration of redundant or under used buildings to be encouraged. TC2: Development and redevelopment of town centres: plans and strategies approach to support town centres, viability and vitality, safeguard environment & character, promote new investment and sustainability. EKA1: East Kent core strategy: Canterbury to develop links with university research & business uses: commercial and cultural centre of international historic importance; new development to be focussed at settlements: heritage and environment to be protected and promoted to foster economic success. WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS Three letters objecting to the application have been received from residents of The Friars, Best Lane and Dane John Court. These raise the following matters:- It is a missed opportunity to incorporate a planting scheme that is attractive or innovative. Arguments put forward in the report are not accurate; trees in confined spaces can survive and those in Guildhall Street seem healthy, wall climbing plants in Best Lane do flourish, birds should be encouraged as wildlife is not seen as pests. The proposed new tree at the edge of the urban square would be far more likely to be knocked down than one adjacent to the library and the churchyard is already well stocked with plants. It is not believed the intention of the CABE and Kent Design Guide comments regarding street clutter is to discourage the greening of streets. A former resident of Best Lane advises that Best Lane is not a narrow winding street, nor is it a challenging environment for plants, with window boxes and hanging baskets flourishing for the objector. Their introduction on a public building would make it a great deal more attractive and it is not understood why they would require a watering system that is more sophisticated than ones used by most businesses to water their hanging baskets. It is improper to have the conditions removed, which were requested directly by a Ward Councillor as concessions to soften the impact of the proposed building. The application should be explored within the context of the Heritage Bill which requires positive enhancement of a conservation area. The whole issue of the Best Lane elevation should be re-explored to find a better solution than what is proposed to allow a building of architectural merit to be built. The current plans do not address the effect of the proposal on the character or appearance of the conservation area or on the setting of the listed building. There is an ongoing Rights of Light investigation. The Orange Street car park is a magnet for anti-social behaviour from drunks and drug users and the plans do not address these problems.
The St Peter's Association agrees that window boxes, planters and creepers would clutter the facade and be difficult to maintain and the addition of a tree in the churchyard is welcomed. It is suggested that instead of a tree at the junction with the High Street and a wall fixed relief statue, a three dimensional statue of Chaucer should be installed. Canterbury Conservation Advisory Committee raises no objection to the proposed removal of the conditions. TECHNICAL CONSULTATIONS None. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Not applicable. DISCUSSION The application has been submitted with a statement by the Council's Landscape Architect/Urban Designer that supports the proposed removal of the conditions. The report identifies Best Lane as a narrow street with building frontages at the back of the footway providing strong enclosure and visual interest and the street pattern characterised by an absence of trees and other plants. In respect of tree planting the statement advises that the footway space immediately in front of the museum will be limited, with little space for new tree planting. If trees are to be planted they would need to be small at maturity and unnaturally upright and columnar in appearance with non-invasive roots. It is stated that trees here would further constrain pedestrian comfort and safety and could be damaged by vehicles. With regards to climbing plants, it is submitted that a wire support system would be inappropriate due to the historic context and therefore self clinging plants would need to be used. Typically, such plants (including ivy and virginia creeper) are vigorous and need regular pruning. They also attach themselves to mortar joints and cause damage when removed (especially where lime mortar is used, as in this case). Furthermore, climbing plants provide nest and roost sites for birds which would give rise to bird droppings above a public entrance. The report also considers the provision of window boxes to be inappropriate as these would appear inappropriate and fussy and are more suited to domestic properties. It is also contended that few people focus on the upper part of tall buildings when walking close to the facade on narrow streets. Further concerns are raised with regard to ongoing maintenance. While I consider it regrettable for landscaping not to be incorporated directly into the scheme, the reasons for this, as put forward by the Council's Landscape Officer are accepted. I do not consider that the omission of the landscaping would result in the development now being unacceptable in visual terms nor that it would impact adversely on the character or appearance of the conservation area (and thus meeting the statutory test of preserving or enhancing the conservation area). It should be noted that the Council is proposing to carry out some enhancements to the public realm to Best Lane and at its junction with the High Street, to include natural stone paving and improved drainage, lighting and signage. As part of these works, two specimen trees would be planted, one in the urban square at the junction with the High Street and the other in the Best Lane closed church yard. The space available here will allow medium to larger sized specimen trees to be planted and could provide a meaningful long-term townscape impact.
Taking the proposed improvements to the public realm in the locality into account it is recommended that permission be given for the removal of the conditions requiring landscaping provision. BACKGROUND PAPERS: 1. Application Ref: CA/10/00241/VAR 2. Notes of Officer's site inspection, dated 06.05.10 3. Previous planning application refs: CA/08/0158/CAN, CAL08/0012/CAN & CAC08/0002/CAN