Agenda item

Outline application for the erection of 43 affordable dwellings [Holgate Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major outline application from Yorkshire Housing for the erection of 43 affordable dwellings at the Severus SRE Site.

Officers provided an update to Members. Members were advised that that further responses had been received. Public Health (Sport and Active Leisure) had objected to the proposal due to the lack of on site open space provision. There had also been a further eleven letters of objection received which cited harm to the historic city, harm to local biodiversity (by virtue of the loss of a Site of Interest of Nature Conservation - SINC) and harm to the safety and local highway users through increased traffic to the site. Yorkshire Wildlife Trust also objected to the ruining of a wildlife oasis.

Members were advised of a correction to 4.17 of the report that should have stated that “The proposal envisages the erection of 43 affordable dwellings with 30 “affordable rent” and 13 shared ownership.”

Officers further advised that senior housing colleagues had commented in general in terms of the need for affordable housing and the likely Homes and Communities Agency support for the type of scheme.

Jane Levy, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. She noted the impact of the development on the ecology and explained the reasons why Yorkshire Wildlife Trust objected to the application.

Jesper Phillips, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. He noted the site’s listing as a SINC and detrimental effect of the development on local residents.

David Ryder, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. He highlighted a number of points relating to the impact of the development on the residential amenity.

Cllr Cannon, Ward Councillor for Holgate, spoke in support of the officer recommendation to refuse the application, listing the reasons for the recommendation as detailed in the report.

Kester Horn (Space Partnerships), agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He noted that the objections to the application did not mitigate the need to affordable housing. He asked the Committee to defer the application.

Officers were asked and clarified that the application should not be deferred as a new application would be required for such extensive changes.

Following consideration of the application it was:

Resolved:  That the application be refused.

Reasons:

                                     i.        The development by virtue of its design and location would give rise to conditions  substantially prejudicial to the residential amenity of Numbers 25-29 Howe Hill Close by virtue of overbearing impact and loss of privacy contrary to Central Government Planning Policy as outlined in paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework, "Core Planning Principles".

                                    ii.        The development by virtue of its proximity to the retained water storage tower on adjacent land to the north west would result in conditions substantially prejudicial to the residential amenity of prospective occupants of Plots 34 -38 by virtue of overbearing impact contrary to Central Government Planning Policy as outlined in paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework "Core Planning Principles".

                                   iii.        The proposed development by virtue of the total removal of a notified SINC (Site of Interest for Nature Conservation) with associated woodland habitat without clear and robust mitigation measures would give rise to very substantial harm to local biodiversity contrary to Central Government Planning Policy as outlined in paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

                                  iv.        The development would give rise to a substandard highway layout to the prejudice of the safety and convenience of highway users with the driveways serving plots 8, 10, 20-23, 31 and 32 incapable of reasonable vehicular use by their occupiers.

                                   v.        The development by virtue of its visual prominence combined with its  engineered, regimented character and total loss of surrounding landscaping would give rise to substantial harm to the wider landscape setting of the City contrary to Central Government Planning Policy as outlined in paragraph 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

                                  vi.        The development by virtue of its overly-dense, physically constrained nature, erosion of the existing landscaped character of the site, lack of opportunity to provide additional landscaping and amenity space and failure to address acceptable amenity separation distances fails to achieve an acceptable quality of design contrary to Central Government Planning Policy as outlined in paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

                                 vii.        Insufficient information has been submitted with the proposal to enable an informed assessment of the impact of the proposal upon known significant archaeological deposits of Roman date known to be present within the site together with any necessary mitigation measures.