Agenda item

Erection of 6 no. blocks for student accommodation after demolition of existing car showroom (resubmission). [Fishergate Ward] [Site Visit]

Consideration was given to a major full application, received from Blacklion Ltd, for the erection of 6 no. blocks for student accommodation after the demolition of an existing car showroom (resubmission).

Officers circulated an update, which informed Members of the following (the full updated is attached to the online agenda):

• The actual number of units was 237 rather than 238
• English Heritage had no further comments in relation to the amended scheme
• 8 further letters of objection had been received covering a number of new points
• St Lawrence Church had withdrawn its objection to the scheme subject to a number of points
• York Civic Trust had continued concerns regarding the density, scale and massing and particularly the design of the buildings
• Further comments of the Environmental Health Officer including a request for the addition of a noise condition
• Highway request for amendment to draft condition 18 to relate to the provision of cycle parking
• Lifelong Learning and Leisure had confirmed that the commuted sum for off site open space would be a total of £76,432. They had also confirmed that there was a deficiency of sport provision within the area and that the money would be spent as part of the community accessible facilities at Heslington East.
• Following receipt of additional drainage information the Engineering Consultancy had requested the addition of a number of additional conditions and an informative note
• Details of the plan numbers for inclusion in draft condition 2.

Representations in support of the application were received from the Planning Consultant. He thanked Officers for their assistance with the application and pointed out that the site was in a central location making it ideal for student accommodation. He stated that the provision of accommodation in the city had not kept pace with student numbers and that the site would be covered by a management plan. He went onto refer to a number concerns raised during the site visit in relation to car parking and he reiterated that highways had raised no objections to the proposals.

Representations were received in objection from a local resident who pointed out that the plans displayed at the meeting were not the same as the plans he had purchased from the Authority when the application had been submitted.

The Planning Officer confirmed that, since the application had been submitted, a number of revisions had been made to the scheme on which residents had been reconsulted.   Officers detailed the major changes made to the scheme since it had originally been lodged.

The local resident went onto express concerns regarding the proposed height of the student accommodation blocks and to the gap left in fencing adjacent to Lawrence Lane and the site access. He also referred to drainage issues in an area where the drains were already overloaded.

Representations in objection were also received from an Osbaldwick resident who expressed concern at the pressure being put on Green Belt land for housing development. He referred to the high level of objections to the proposals for the site, which he hoped Members would note. He again felt that student accommodation should be provided within the University campus.

Representations were then received from a representative of the York Civic Society. The representative stated that the Society had a number of concerns including that this development was purely speculative and had not been requested by the University. He stated that, in their opinion, the present scale, design and materials were not suitable for the area. The access road would be sited against the Ellen Wilson Homes and affect the amenity of vulnerable residents.

The Local Member expressed concerns at the proposals particularly in relation to its affect on the Conservation Area and the adjacent listed buildings. He felt that there was insufficient car parking and the massing would also have a detrimental impact on the Tannery and Barbican Mews. He requested the Committee to refuse the application.

Members went onto question a number of aspects of the application and areas of concern, which included:

• Width between the accommodation blocks for emergency services, which it was confirmed would be covered by building regulations
• Use of the open space contribution at the University
• Further details of the occupancy management plan
• Lawrence Lane access to site via keypads and confirmation that this would also include CCTV both inside and outside the properties
• Parking provision and potential parking displacement in the surrounding area

In answer to Members questions Officers confirmed that it was not necessary to specify where the contribution for off site open space should be used. It was pointed out that Officers in Life Long Learning and Leisure would take account of Local Plan policies and direct monies to any identified needs in the area.

Following further lengthy discussion Councillor D’Agorne moved and Councillor Potter seconded refusal of the application on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site, its impact on the Conservation Area and its affect on the amenity of adjacent residents. On being put to the vote it was 

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.

REASON:     1. It is considered that as a consequence of their location and density as well as their excessive scale, height and massing, the proposed student blocks, would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Central Historic Core Conservation Area and the setting of adjacent listed Ellen Wilson Almshouses and St Lawrence Church. The development is therefore contrary to advice in Planning Policy Statement 5 ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’ and the accompanying Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide (March 2010), which highlight the importance of the protection of heritage assets, and to the following – Development Control Local Plan (Approved April 2005) policies:-

                                    GP1 (Design) which states, inter alia, that development proposals will be expected to:

a)                 respect or enhance the local environment;

b)                 be of a density, layout, scale, mass and design that is compatible with neighbouring buildings, spaces and the character of the area, using appropriate building material;

HE2 (Development in Historic Locations) which states that within or adjoining conservation areas and in locations which affect the setting of listed buildings, scheduled monuments or nationally important archaeological remains (whether scheduled or not), development proposals must respect adjacent buildings, open spaces, landmarks and settings and have regard to local scale, proportion, detail and materials;

HE3 (Conservation Areas) which states development proposals will be expected to:

a)     respect or enhance the local environment;

b)     be of a density, layout, scale, mass and design that is compatible with neighbouring buildings, spaces and the character of the area, using appropriate building materials.

HE4 (Listed Buildings) which states consent will only be granted for development in the immediate vicinity of listed buildings where there is no adverse effect on the character, appearance or setting of the building (s).

2.                  It is considered that as a consequence of their location and density as well as their excessive scale, height and massing, the proposed student blocks, would dominate and overlook existing residential development to the south, west and east of the site, and would therefore be detrimental to the residential amenity of adjacent dwellings. This is contrary to Development Control Local Plan (Approved April 2005) Policy GP1 (Design), which states that development proposals will be expected to, inter alia:-

i) ensure that residents living nearby are not unduly affected by noise, disturbance, overlooking, overshadowing or dominated by overbearing structures.