Agenda item

Erection of 3 storey block of 6 no. Apartments. [Micklegate Ward][Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Experian Developments Ltd for the erection of a 3 storey block of 6 no. apartments.

Officers advised that Micklegate Planning Panel had responded to the consultation and had no objections to the application. However a further four objections had been received from numbers 82 and 86 The Mount and 34 and 69 Holgate Road which raised the following concerns:

·        Amenity

o   Amendments made to the scheme do not address concerns over the size of the proposed building and its impact on neighbours. The building would be over-bearing and it would lead to over-shadowing and loss of light. (The building would be 3-storey & within 14m of 82 & 86 The Mount).

o   The offices at 86 accommodate a forensic speech and acoustics laboratory. Work involves the detailed analysis of recorded sound and conversation for criminal investigation and judicial purposes. A major part of this entails careful listening in a quiet acoustic laboratory environment. The noise generated during the development of the site would cause substantial disruption to the business.

·        Design - Note comments of the conservation officer that the front elevation would be ‘uninspiring’. This is worsened by increasing the width of the vehicle access.

·        Highway safety

o   No parking for future residents or visitors is unacceptable. The majority of households generally require some parking provision and it is unrealistic to expect a development to operate without space for residents, visitors or servicing.

o   Visibility at access inadequate (Officers note that the visibility at the entrance will be no worse than it is at the moment. )

·        Servicing

o   Servicing vehicles would be unable to access the site (waste collection for example). Those that can are likely to either block the access of leave vehicles being unable to leave the site in a forward gear.

(Officers note that the strategy for waste collection will be the same as the majority of Holgate, and the additional development in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority would not have a material impact on highway safety. )

·        Air quality –  The site is within the air quality management area – the development would worsen the air quality for existing residents, by adding to the enclosed nature of the street. It is suggested that air quality has worsened in this particular area due to the re-location of the traffic lights. It is added in the same objection letter that it would be naive to have a car free residential development in this location.

Representations were received from Councillor Gunnell, Ward Member for Micklegate Ward, who had called in the application for determination by committee due to concerns over the scale of the proposed development and the impact on the amenity of surrounding occupants. She explained that she had visited the site and had been in dialogue with residents regarding the proposals. She expressed concerns regarding the planning process and with the developer and made the following points.

·        Lack of consideration has been given to the listed buildings at the back of the site.

·        Original proposals were not sympathetic to area – these are still not sympathetic

·        Site location – plans shows incorrect footprint

·        Development introduces a degree of overlooking

·        Mature trees have been removed without consent – these provided screening – residents have requested trees are replanted along the boundary wall.

·        Issues with the drains

Representations were received from Peter French, a joint owner of business premises at 86 The Mount, a two storey building backing onto the site, and owner of the leasehold of four of the parking spaces. He raised the following concerns:

·        Privacy and Overshadowing – the bulk and height of the building would lead to problems of overlooking to our windows and loss of light to the back of our building and yard.

·        Inadequate parking – it is imperative that adequate provision is made for parking of vehicles belonging to residents of proposed flats. The provision of zero spaces per resident is unrealistic.

·        Visibility splay at entrance is in contravention with council policy.

Representations were received from Clive Burns, a local resident of Holgate. He raised concerns regarding parking as follows:

·        Availability of parking - it is naive to expect that the owners of the new flats will not have cars and visitors to the flats may have cars too. It is already a constant battle for local residents to find spaces to park their own cars in the residents parking zones. There is no more space. 

·        Safety - as the car park is hidden behind the arch, visitors will only realise that there is no room to park their car once they have driven in. As there is no room to turn around they would have to reverse back out through the arch onto a busy road.

Representations were received from John Howlett, a planning consultant acting on behalf of the applicant. He made the following comments:

·        the development is car free  - this fits in with the site’s location in the city centre with amenities close at hand – car free developments are not unusual in York.

·        site is located in a conservation area.

·        Re impact of the property on the amenity of local occupiers – rear garden is defined by a 2m wall – considers this relationship to be acceptable.

In response to a question by the Chair, Mr Howlett agreed that it would be possible to erect a sign outside the archway to advise people there was no parking available.

Officers confirmed that there was sufficient space to turn a car round in the parking area if anyone turned into it so there was no reason why they couldn’t enter and leave forwards.

Members accepted that accommodation of this type was needed in the city and acknowledged the need to encourage people not to use vehicles but that this had to be balanced against changes to the street scene. One Member stated she was uncomfortable about building more one bed flats as this failed to address the strategic housing needs assessment.

RESOLVED:       That the application be approved subject to a Section 106 agreement, the conditions listed in the report and the addition of an informative asking the applicants to erect a sign at the entrance to the arch to inform people that no parking is available for the flats.

REASON:           The proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the report, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to the impact on heritage assets, residential amenity and highway safety. As such the proposal complies with Policies HE2, HE3, HE10, GP1and H4a of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.