Agenda item

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

Members considered a full major application by RMBI and Shepherd Homes Ltd for the erection of 14 no. dwellings following the demolition of an existing bowling clubhouse and garage block.

In their update to Members Officers stated that;

·        Condition 16 (in the report) which required the applicant to provide a minimum of 10% of energy demand from renewable sources could be deleted because it was covered by recent changes to the Building Regulations.

·        They had received further comments from Fulford Parish Council and Fulford Friends in objection. In relation to one comment about the absence of ‘streetscape’ views of the Ings, Officers were satisfied that sufficient information had been supplied by the applicant to enable the impact of the development to be properly considered.

·        The Parish Council had asked that three conditions be added or amended to planning permission. In response Officers felt that the suggested conditions were unnecessary and therefore contrary to national planning policy guidance.

·        The proposed Section 106 unilateral undertaking for financial contributions was nearing completion.

Representations in objection were received from the Chair of Fulford Friends. She asked that Members deferred the application for the following reasons;

·        That the scheme was at odds with the Fulford Conservation Area. In the Friends’ view this meant that the presumption in favour of development was incorrect and should not be taken into consideration by Members.

·        That the site should not be identified as brownfield land as it was currently open space land and the gardens should not be classified as such.

·        A sequential test was required  because parts of the site were in floodzones 2 and 3. Following a Member’s question, the Chair told the Committee that the Friends had contacted the developers to offer their help with the application but that this had been turned down.

Further representations in objection were received from a local resident. He told Members that;

·        That he was disappointed with the design that had been submitted by the applicants, as it was virtually the same as the previous application and it was not in keeping with the adjacent Sir John Hunt homes.

·        That the design of the buildings in Area B had been designed differently to Area A, which had been based on the Fulford Road Conservation Area not the Fulford Village Conservation Area.

·        That residents from the Fulford Friends group had met with the applicants to suggest that the height of the houses be lowered.

Representations in support were received from the applicant’s agent. He spoke about how;

·        The building line in Area A of the development had been pulled further away from St Oswalds Road to reduce the impact that the development would have on the existing trees on the site.

·        Comments from Yorkshire Water had been received and they had no objections to the development.

·        Following Members’ previous concerns about the design of the proposed houses the applicants’ architects did look at other alternatives.

Members asked why the applicants had not asked for residents views. In response the agent replied that they felt that they had fulfilled what Members had requested. He added that Officers were happy with the arrangements regarding the frontage on to St Oswalds Road.

Representations were received from a representative of Fulford Parish Council. She told Members that;

·        She felt that there had been material changes to the site since the application had been submitted. The site was now located in the Fulford Village Conservation Area, and the character of the village had not been sufficiently considered.

·        No streetscape view had been provided  so assessment of the view of the development from Fulford Ings could not be made.

·        She questioned why 14 large houses had been proposed, and why were these not split down into smaller ones providing affordable housing.

·        The only reason why the site had been added to the Fulford Village Conservation Area was because of Connaught Court’s historic parkland rather than the buildings on it.

Representations were received from the Ward Member Councillor Aspden. He asked Members to refuse the application because;

·        He was not convinced that the applicants had worked with the Parish Council or Fulford Friends, and their lack of willingness to consult was not favourable.

·        That aspects of the application were in conflict with policy and design.

In response to questions from Members, Officers informed the Committee that they felt that the reasons given for deferral of the previous application had now been addressed by the resubmitted application. They reported that the Conservation Area was centred on Fulford Village and included all of the Care Home and grounds The development was located on the extreme edge of the conservation area .

Some Members recalled a previous proposal for development on the site some years ago, which was mainly located around the part now occupied by the Residential Home. They felt that the applicants had covered concerns that Members had previously raised in past applications on the site.

Other Members felt that the proposed buildings did not compare with the local area and that the size of the proposed development was to only maximise profit for the developers.

Resolved:   That the application be approved subject to a Section 106 agreement and the deletion of condition 16.

Reason:     The application would provide much needed dwellings in a highly sustainable and accessible location. The proposals respect the character of the two affected conservation areas, in particular the parkland setting of the site and its mature protected trees.