Agenda item

Erection of 14no. dwellings following demolition of existing bowling clubhouse and garage block. [Fulford Ward] [Site Visit]

Consideration was given to a major full application (13 weeks) by RMBI and Shepherd Homes Ltd for the erection of 14 new dwellings following the demolition of an existing bowling clubhouse and garage block.

Officers circulated an update to the committee report, full details of which are attached to the online agenda, which highlighted that:

·        Comments had been received from the Conservation Area Advisory Panel, who raised no objections and commended what they felt was a much improved scheme. 

·        Four further objections had been received from local residents but that all issues raised had already been covered in their report.

·        Further comments had been received from Fulford Parish Council who raised no new issues except that whilst the site was put forward as part of the call for sites it was not allocated for housing in the consultation draft of the local plan. In response officers advised that the site was small and was being treated as a windfall site, and therefore not specifically allocated for housing.  They confirmed that the current application accorded with the council’s criteria for determining such windfall sites therefore the proposal could be determined in advance of the local plan process.

·        Further comments had also been received (and distributed to members in advance of the meeting) from Fulford Friends and all issues raised had been addressed in the officers’ report. Nevertheless the council’s countryside officer had responded to the argument that the submitted bat survey was inadequate and advised that the areas to be developed were both amenity grassland with few trees and scrub. As such they had limited potential for bats either for roosting or foraging. Their locations were also likely to reduce any impact on the use of the area as a corridor. Connaught Court was likely to be a good foraging and corridor route but this was limited to the areas of suitable habitat, predominantly in the corridor of mature trees running from Fulford Road through to the Ings between Fulford Park and the Connaught Court buildings.  The legislation mainly referred to the likely presence of roosts and the likelihood that development would affect roosts or have a significant impact on the local population. The Countryside Officer’s view was that it was unlikely to affect any roosts directly or have a significant impact on the bat population and felt that a bat forage survey would be unnecessary and unreasonable. He confirmed that the surveys of the buildings to be demolished were valid and showed no use by bats and this coupled with the unsuitability of the habitat for foraging meant that there was no reason not to consider this application.

·        Fulford Friends also argued that the flooding risks of Area B should undergo further scrutiny.  Flood risk issues were covered in the officer’s report.  Nevertheless officers agreed with the objection that the proposed fencing between the curtilages in flood zone 3, if close-boarded, could inhibit movement of flood water.  Officers recommended that details of fencing were made a condition of approval.

·        The applicant had agreed to change the route of the temporary access road so that it would not go between the trees along the St Oswalds Road frontage but instead would now enter the site through the front gate before following a new alignment parallel to the internal access road.  Officers welcomed the new alignment.

·        Tree protection measures had now been received therefore the tree protection condition (16) should be amended accordingly.

·        The latest proposals showed the house at plot 9 being 6m from the boundary with the rear garden of 26 Atcherley Close.  A proposed sewer would run under the strip, requiring an easement which would prevent construction – as long as the sewer, as built, followed this alignment.  In case it did not, officers recommended that a condition be attached removing permitted development rights in this area.

·        The proposed Section106 unilateral undertaking for financial contributions was still awaited.

Mary Urmston spoke on behalf of Fulford Friends. She commented that:

·        The principle for building on Area B was not supported by planning policy

·        The green space separating Fulford Village from York was important. If existing gaps were replaced with views of buildings this space would be spoilt forever. Heritage assets were irreplaceable and any harm or loss must have convincing justification.

·        Areas in Zone 1 should be developed first as access was already in place. Approving development in a higher risk zone when areas in Zone 1 were available, would conflict with planning policy.

·        There were concerns over drainage which raised uncertainty as to whether sewers could cope with demand.

·        The application required a comprehensive bat survey

Members noted that Yorkshire Water had not submitted a formal response.  Officers explained that surface water from the site was attenuated then discharged into water courses that were not the responsibility of Yorkshire Water. An officer from the Flood Risk Management Team advised that the applicant had not only agreed to reducing the run-off by 30 percent (in accordance with the council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment) but had also offered betterment by storing more water underground and applying further restrictions to its discharge than they had been asked to. With regard to foul water, Yorkshire Water had been consulted as the applicant wanted to divert this.  City of York Council has no control over this issue.

One Member stated that in the draft local plan the area in question had been allocated as a green corridor. Officers advised that the site was a small site and was being treated as a windfall site and that, according to current local and national policy, housing was justifiable on these two sites. Officers stressed that Members should not use the draft position in the draft local plan to make this decision.

David Wilkinson also spoke on behalf of Fulford Friends. He circulated a handout to Members which provided a summary from their response report which had been circulated to Members and plans showing Area A on the latest revision of plan K as well as a suggested layout of Area A produced by the Fulford Friends Group and a number of photographs. He made the following points:

·        Proposed houses in Area A were out of character – single storey houses would be more appropriate.

·        In the latest revision of plan K, houses 1, 3 and 4 were out of line and too close to boundary trees. The road into Area A would destroy the rare pear tree. The applicant stated it was not possible to retain this tree without losing a dwelling but the suggested layout retained this tree.

Cliff Caruthers of O’Neill Associates, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He made the following points:

·        The report explained differences between the current proposal and the previous scheme.

·        RMBI were owners of the site who were undertaking a countrywide upgrade of their homes. There had been no updating to Connaught Court since the 1970s.

·        The current proposals reflected comments of the Planning Inspectorate appeal decision.

·        Pre-application and post submission consultations had been undertaken and concerns raised had been responded to where possible.

·        Construction routes would be constructed at the earliest possibility in order to minimise disturbance.

Karin de Vries had registered to speak on behalf of Fulford Parish Council. She raised the following issues:

·        The application was on historic parkland.

·        Fulford Parish Council wrote to City of York Council on 15 January objecting to the principle of development of the site – this was not referred to in the committee report.

·        The proposed housing would have an impact on Fulford Park House which was a major feature.

·        Lack of affordable homes – these houses would be out of reach for local residents.

·        The proposed development would lead to a loss of open space and would impact on trees.

Councillor Aspden had registered to speak as Fulford Ward Councillor on behalf of local residents. He raised the following concerns:

·        Flooding - some houses are located in flood zone 2 and the gardens (with retaining walls) of other houses lie within flood zone 3.

·        Traffic issues

·        impact on wildlife

·        impact on landmark trees

·        Lack of affordable housing

·        Harm to parkland setting

·        Harm to setting of listed building

He asked why the drainage conditions had not been amended to 1.4 litres per second as agreed.

Officers explained the 1.4 litre per second per hectare was based on greenfield run off but on brownfield sites this is 140 litres/sec/hectare. This is a brownfield site so, in drainage terms, brownfield run off (restricted to 70% of the existing rate) applies. They advised that they had spoken to the Internal Drainage Board who had agreed to 5 litres/sec/hectare.

Officers advised that all dwellings were located in flood zone 1 (all set above the 1 in 100 year + 20% climate change allowance flood zone level), but that the rear gardens of 10, 11, 12 and 14 encroach into flood zone 2 (but with means of escape within flood zone 1 to the front of the property). 

Some Members acknowledged that they would have to accept some development on this land at some point (due to the inspector’s decision) but did not feel that the design and layout of the proposed housing was right. They expressed the opinion that if it was not possible to have houses fronting onto St Oswalds Road due to the trees, it may be more sensible to come further away from the trees and look at something similar to what had been proposed by Fulford Friends. They also noted that they would have liked to have an affordable element to the scheme. They stated that the design of Area B needed to be more sympathetic as it backed onto the Ings and agreed with the views expressed by one speaker of the importance that the new homes fitted with the existing John Hunt homes. They suggested that Parish Council and Fulford Friends were involved in drawing up the scheme.

Other Members confirmed that they were relatively happy with the proposals. They accepted that there would be a loss of open space but noted that this was private open space. With regard to the layout, they acknowledged that people would always be able to come up with different layouts. They did not feel there was a need to be concerned about a flood risk.

Councillor Galvin moved and Councillor Gillies seconded a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed in the report and the additional/amended conditions proposed by officers in their update. On being put to the vote, the motion fell.

Councillor Reid moved and Councillor Cuthbertson seconded a motion to defer the application on the grounds of the design and layout of Area A and the effect on the conservation area and the listed building. On being put to the vote, this motion was carried.

Resolved:  That the application be deferred.

Reason:     Seek amendments to the design and layout of Area A. The current layout is unsatisfactory in terms of its impact on the trees and the adjacent listed building the rear parking and access is poor.