Agenda item

Members considered a major reserved matters application, submitted by Barratt Homes (York), for residential development comprising 37 houses and 20 apartments, a new changing facility and public open space.

The Case Officer outlined details of the amended plans and additional information that had been submitted since the publication of the report.  He detailed the comments received from the Acomb Planning Panel and reported that the Landscape Officer’s comments had been reconfirmed and that further discussions on affordable housing had taken place.

Representations were received from neighbouring residents of Melwood Grove and Sunningdale Close, in objection to the application.  Representations were received from the applicant’s agent, in support of the application.

Members raised a range of concerns regarding the height, site level and proximity of the proposed dwellings in relation to the adjacent properties on Melwood Grove and Sunningdale Close.  They commented that the density proposed was too high for the site and that Design for Living homes should be included in the development.

They also raised concerns regarding security issues, particularly in relation to the back alleyways proposed and the siting of the play area in a corner of the site with no surveillance.

Other issues discussed included the lack of adequate cycle parking, the need to retain all trees, not just those protected by Tree Protection Orders (TPO’s), and the lack of safe pedestrian and cycle access to the site and in particular the playing fields, other than from Beckfield Lane.

It was reported that the Sustainability Appraisal had only recently been submitted by the applicant and that the Case Officer was awaiting comments from consultees before he could confirm if it met the requirements of Policy GP4a.  Members highlighted that this information needed to be available to them and also commented that the drawings should have been made available to them to enable them to assess the design and materials and compare them to adjacent properties.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.

REASON: (i) Because of the height, bulk, mass and location of the proposed block of dwellings adjacent Sunningdale Close, this particular element of the development would result in overshadowing, would have an overbearing effect and would impact upon the outlook on no.18, 19 and 20 Sunningdale Close thereby harming their existing living conditions.  As a consequence the proposal fails to satisfy national planning guidance  PPS1 and PPG3 and also policies GP1 of the City of York Draft Local Plan (incorporating 4th set of changes) - 2005.

                        (ii) The proposal is undermined by the lack of a full landscape plan and specification as part of the design of the scheme.  As a consequence the proposal fails to provide for a planned and integrated landscaping scheme.  The outcome of which is a development  which would be dominated by dwellings, car parking and hard surfacing.  As such the proposal would not be compatible with the well established suburban character of the area and is therefore contrary to national planning guidance PPS1 and PPG3 and also policies GP1, GP9 and H5a of the City of York Draft Local Plan (incorporating 4th set of changes) - 2005.

                        (iii) Due to the layout and siting of the dwellings within the site, such a high density scheme does not allow for any associated soft landscaping which would add to the amenity of the scheme and create a sense of place, nor does the proposal incorporate existing landscaping, trees, etc which could further add to the visual amenity of the proposed residential development.  As a consequence the proposal does not create a definable character or distinctive quality of place for the scheme as sought by 'Better Places to Live by Design: A companion Guide to PPG3'.  As such the proposal would not be compatible with the well established suburban character of the area and is therefore contrary to national planning guidance PPS1 and PPG3 and also policies GP1, GP9, NE1 and H5a of the City of York Draft Local Plan (incorporating 4th set of changes) - 2005.

                        (iv) The proposal fails to provide adequate provision for covered and secure cycle parking provision with regard to the proposed flat accommodation.  Such an under provision  would harm the City Council's objectives of maintaining and promoting cycle usage in order to minimise traffic generation, reduce pollution, noise and the physical impact of traffic and is therefore contrary to policy T4 of the City of York Draft Local Plan (incorporating 4th set of changes) - 2005.

(v)                The proposed bin storage for the proposed flat accommodation is inadequate in size, inconvenient to access from the majority of the proposed flats and difficult to collect for refuse collection.  Such an inadequate arrangement would most likely result in rubbish being stored in other common areas or outside in the parking or circulation areas. This would be harmful to residential and visual amenity and is contrary to policy GP1 and GP4a of the City of York Draft Local Plan (incorporating 4th set of changes) - 2005.