Agenda item

Erection of self storage facility, with associated access and landscaping [Rawcliffe And Clifton Without Ward]

Members considered a full application from MJ McCarthy Holdings Ltd for the erection of a self storage facility, with associated access and landscaping.

Officers updated the committee with additional representations from residents and one of the local Ward Councillors on the following issues:

-      Height of the building

-      Design

-      Scale and massing

-      Appropriateness of the building in surrounding area

-      Loss of light to residential houses

-      Traffic and Noise concerns

It was also noted that there had been a petition submitted with 104 signatures.

Darryl Smalley, on behalf of the Rawcliffe and Clifton Without Liberal Democrats, spoke in objection to the proposal. He highlighted to the committee that the Liberal Democrats had received a number of objections to the proposal. Mr Smalley stated that residents believed this proposal had an unacceptable impact on the community. It was pointed out that there was no compelling evidence for why a self storage facility was needed in this area of York.

Catherine Allan, a local resident, also spoke in objection to the application. Ms Allen stated that the proposed building was unusually large and undermined the principles of the DCLP and Government Planning Policy. It was also noted that the proposed landscaping could not hide the size and impact of this building on the neighbouring residential properties.

Andrew Stanley, a local resident, then spoke in objection to the application. Mr Stanley highlighted to the committee that the building was the definition of ‘overbearing’ at almost twice the height of the supermarket and housing surrounding it. It was noted that the local residents had no objection to the site being developed for commercial use, but that this particular development would reduce privacy and exacerbate already existing noise and traffic concerns and would fundamentally change the area.

Bryony Jepson, a local resident, spoke against the application. Ms Jepson informed the committee that there were a number of sites in York that would be better suited to such a development and that it was at an entirely disproportionate scale to its surroundings.

Cllr Stuart Rawlings, ward Councillor for Rawcliffe and Clifton Without, then spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Rawlings highlighted three main planning concerns on which this application should be refused:

1)   Loss of amenity due to size and proximity of housing

2)   Traffic congestion

3)   Impact on the street scene

Cllr Rawlings concluded that there was a strong sense of feeling against the application in the local community and that the amendments made by the applicant had not gone far enough.

Matthew Turnbull, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Mr Turnbull gave an overview of the application and stated that the applicant had not received any objections from statutory consultees. He stated that there would be minimal noise implications and that the parking provided on site was enough to ensure no worsening of the local traffic and parking issues.

Mr Joe Nassan, project manager for the applicant, also spoke in support of the application. Mr Nassan pointed out that all the changes that had been made to the proposed development were as a result of consultation with the Council. He stated that there would be very minimal traffic or noise implications due to the typical behaviour of self storage users. Mr Nassan also pointed out that the purchase of the site had only progressed due to positive conversations held with Council officers.

Mike McCarthy, the applicant, also spoke in support of the application. Mr McCarthy stated that his company ran a number of sites similar to this including in Leeds and Harrogate. At these sites, Mr McCarthy informed the committee that the company had positive relationships with their neighbours and once operational, disruption to the local community would be minimal as a majority of self storage users, accessed their units less than once a month.

It was also highlighted to the committee that the proposed development would employ six members of staff and hold approximately 450-500 ‘units’ for storage.

During the debate members questioned whether residents’ houses would be overshadowed and whether residents in these houses would experience a loss of light. It was confirmed by officers that houses would potentially have some overshadowing of their gardens as a result of the development.

Members highlighted their concerns with the application, encompassing all of the arguments made by residents but in particular, the buildings size and overbearing nature on its immediate residential neighbours.

Therefore, it was:

Resolved: That the application be refused

Reason: The development by virtue of creating a large, high visually undifferentiated building mass in close proximity to the boundary with residential development would create conditions seriously prejudicial to the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties contrary to the requirements of paragraph 127 f) of the NPPF "Core Planning Principles , Policy GP1 of the York Development Control Local Plan (2005) and Policy D1 of the Publication Draft City of York Local Plan (2018) (as amended).