Agenda item

Conversion of coach house to provide 7no. letting bedrooms ancillary to Grays Court.[Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr John Edwards for the conversion of a coach house to provide seven letting bedrooms ancillary to Grays Court. Members agreed to consider the application for Listed Building Consent (Minute 21e refers) for internal and external alterations in connection with the conversion alongside this application.

The Council’s Head of Design, Conservation and Sustainable Development was present at the meeting to provide additional information as needed.

Officers advised that they had received a consultation response from English Heritage who were content to defer to the specialist conservation advice provided by City of York Council. They stated that concerns with regard to the proposed service provision and the impact on the archaeological deposits had been addressed and would be confirmed through the Scheduled Monument consent process.

Representations were received from O’Neill Associates on behalf of an objector. She stated that this proposal could not be assessed in isolation from other activities taking place at Grays Court. She noted that Planning consent granted in 2006 allowed change of use to a dwelling with lettable rooms and a holiday flat however was of the opinion that this permission did not permit use of the premises as a café which was now in operation and which was used for events such as dinners, exhibitions and wedding receptions, which extend out into the garden in summer which she stated impacts adversely on adjacent residents. She stressed that an additional 7 letting bedrooms would add considerably to the disturbance and inconvenience already faced by residents as a result of current activities on site. She advised Members that she supported the principle of re-use of historic buildings to maintain their fabric but noted that this area, within York’s Central Conservation Area, had been used for residential purposes since the 15^th century. She voiced the opinion that this “unauthorised activity” needed to be investigated and controls put in place before this proposal could be determined.

Representations were also received from the applicant in favour of the application. He asked that minor details raised at this stage be dealt with by conditions. In respect of concerns raised about parking, he advised that there would be not be issue of displaced parking, as staff did not currently park on the site. He advised that parking facilities already existing would be available for use by residents of the Coach House. He stressed that both Grays Court and the Coach House must be economically viable in order for them, as owners, to be able to afford the costs of repair and maintenance of the historic buildings. He voiced the opinion that it was in the public’s interest to have Grays Court in full use and the development of the Coach House would contribute to this but without development taking place, both buildings could in future appear on English Heritage’s Buildings at Risk Register. In response to queries from Members, he confirmed that his preference was to be able to develop the Coach House as 7 letting bedrooms, in preference to a single dwellinghouse. He confirmed that if the application for the 7 letting bedrooms was approved, guests would not be able to park on site but would be advised to park off site in one of the city’s public car parks.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused.

REASON

1          The application proposals fail to demonstrate that parking for the proposed use and the displacement of existing parking and storage facilities from the building would not harm the character and appearance of the conservation area, the setting of nearby listed buildings and views from the adjacent city walls.  Car parking in such close proximity to the City Walls would be obtrusive and prominent, and would harmfully impact in the open character of this part on the conservation area.  As such the proposals would not meet the objectives of Policies HE2, HE3, HE4 and HE11 of the City of York Local Plan ( 2005 ) and policies HE 6.2, HE 7.2, HE 9.4 and 10.2 of Planning Policy Statement 5 " Planning for the Historic Environment, "  by undervaluing the significance of the heritage asset as a whole, and by failing to acknowledge the contribution of the proposals to the wider setting and views of some of York's most valued heritage assets.

 2         The proposed use of the building as 7 letting bedrooms in association with the  private dwellinghouse at Gray's Court would intensify the commercial use of Gray's Court as a whole, and would materially change the approved planning use which is  that of a private dwellinghouse including  bed and breakfast letting, as part of the planning permission dated 7th  March 2006 (LPA ref: 05/02557/FUL).  As such the proposal can only properly  be considered as part of a planning application for the use of Gray's Court and the Stable Block as a whole.

 3         The proposed external alterations to the building including the size and number of rooflights, the introduction of solar panels, the erection of a porch, the vertical emphasis of new windows and doors and the loss of characteristic features such as the stable doors and taking-in hatches would reduce the utilitarian character of the building and harm the appearance of the building adversely affecting the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of nearby listed buildings.  As such the proposals would not meet the objectives of policies HE2, HE3 and HE4 of the Development Control Local Plan or of policies contained within Planning Policy Statement 5 "Planning for the Historic Environment".