Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site for purpose-built student accommodation with up to 303 bedrooms, associated communal facilities, car parking and landscaping (resubmission) [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered a major full application from Gavin Douglas for the Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site for purpose-built student accommodation with up to 303 bedrooms, associated communal facilities, car parking and landscaping (resubmission) at Alton Cars York Ltd, 3 James Street, York.

The Case Officer gave a presentation on the application detailing the site layout, elevations, floor plans, top floor plan, massing modelling and a photomontage of the scheme. He then gave a committee update noting comments from Highway Network Management and the Flood Risk Management Team who had requested an amendment to Condition 5 and variation to Condition 18 to include seating in the landscaping scheme.

Public Speakers

The Applicant, Gavin Douglas, spoke in support of the application. He responded to the reasons for the refusal of the previous application which included a reduced building footprint and increased soft landscaping. He noted the offer of land for adoption for a shared cycle and footway. He explained that the room sizes had exceeded requirements. He asked Members to consider revisions to the scheme.

In response to Member questions, Gavin Douglas explained that:

The offer of the land for adoption was on the eastern side of the landscaping on James Street and they would also pay for it.

The shared cycle and footway would be 3.5m and there would be consultation of highways officers on it.

The waste management would be managed through a private operator. The waste would be sited as far away from properties as possible. There would be a waste management plan.

The apartments had segregation units for recycling.

The means of discharging to the public sewer was explained.

Regarding amendments on the western side of the site, there was one window on the upper floors on Dunlin House and  the west elevation would overlook the communal grounds used either for car parking or as amenity space at Dunlin/Heron House. The windows would be angled away and the building was 22.5m away from the north and 25m away from the south of Dunlin House.

The windows overlooking the courtyard were semi private.

Should the application be approved the appeal for previous refusal of the application would be withdrawn.

Regarding the communal space, the cluster bedrooms had a shared kitchen and dining space, on the ground floor there was a gym, laundry, cinema and breakout space (which was bookable online).

The external space was not covered and there was a dedicated route from the cycle store through the external space.

The applicant was willing to look into e-bike use with Tier.

Members then asked Officers further questions which they responded that:

Condition 18 could be amended for the landscaping to be for the lifetime of the scheme.

Regarding the feasibility of the adoption of the land, the Applicant would adopt the land as a highway and the council would undertake the work under a S278 agreement.

The application should be determined on its own merits.

There would be a reference to the frequency of waste collection in the waste management plan and there was scope in Condition 23. This would be a condition and not an informative.

The response of the Conservation Areas Advisory Panel was confirmed.

The cycle and footway was shared and could not be segregated.

There was not a scheme for the provision of a junction at James Street and Lawrence Street and the scheme was compliant woth paragraph 57 pf the NPPF.

It was not known what the 303 bedrooms would translate into as housing units.

Following debate Cllr Fenton moved approval of the application with Condition 18 amended to include the addition of seating and the landscaping to be for the lifetime of the scheme. This was seconded by Cllr Widdowson. Members voted 14 in favour of the motion and 1 against, it was therefore:

Conclusion

Taking into consideration all further comments, aside from the variation to condition 18 (as above), the officer recommendation is unchanged and no further amendments to the recommendation (as set out in section 7 of the committee report) are proposed.

 Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the following amended Condition 18:

                   Condition 18

The development shall not be occupied until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a detailed landscaping scheme which shall illustrate the number, species, height and position of trees and shrubs and hard landscaping features including the provision of seating. The landscaping shall be for the lifetime of the scheme.

Reason:

                     i.        The presumption in favour of sustainable development in paragraph 11d of the NPPF applies to this application. This means permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. 

                    ii.        Officers are content the amendments made to the application address the reasons for refusal of the previous application identified by the planning committee.  The concerns of overdevelopment of the site, lack of public realm enhancements and wider benefits are addressed; by the reduced amount of development, increased amount of public amenity space proposed and the junction improvements, combined with wider footpaths, which would make the area more attractive and pedestrian friendly.  It has been evidenced the development would provide adequate levels of amenity for its future occupants (taking into account room/cluster sizes and provision of amenities).  

                  iii.        NPPF paragraph 123 states Local Planning Authorities “should support proposals to use retail and employment land for homes in areas of high housing demand, provided this would not undermine key economic sectors or sites or the vitality and viability of town centres”.  The scheme is acceptable in principle when assessed against the NPPF, taking into account need for the proposed use and the sustainable location.  In respect of the former use of the site, the business has relocated to a preferable site.  There are favourable sites where the employment needs of the city, over the emerging plan period, can be accommodated.  The scheme accords with local policy for the economy and student accommodation.

                  iv.        The proposed development ranges in height from 3-5 storey.  This building scale is comparable to the development to the west and would not be excessive in this location.  There is no harm to the setting of the Central Historic Core Conservation Area.  Technical matters are addressed (using planning conditions where necessary).  There would be no undue effects on neighbours and a favourable effect on the highway (and setting in this respect) compared to the former use.  Approval is recommended; no adverse impacts of the scheme are identified, that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.