Agenda item

A major full application for the erection of 14 dwellings following demolition of existing bowling clubhouse and garage block. [Fulford & Heslington Ward] [Site Visit].

Members considered a major full application by the Royal Masonic Benevolent Institute (RMBI) and Shepherd Homes Ltd for the erection of 14 dwellings following the demolition of the existing bowling clubhouse and garage block.

A letter from Fulford Friends outlining their main reasons of objection and a statement from Lindsay Cowle, Conservation Consultant on behalf of Fulford Friends with regard to the impact of the proposals on heritage assets were circulated to committee members.

Officers provided a written update (full details of which are attached to the published online agenda for information). They advised that additional internal consultation responses had been received from the Planning and Environmental Management (Conservation Architect) who advised that the drawings and documents summarized at 1.2 and 1.3 of the Planning Statement Further Addendum report dated February 2016 did not change the scheme in a way which is significant to heritage interests. Additionally, the Planning and Development Manager, School Services, had advised that as a result of slightly lower per pupil cost multipliers and updated pupil number projections, a revised contribution was sought as follows:

·        £12,147 Primary – towards one additional place at St Oswald’s CE Primary

·        £30, 368 Secondary – towards two additional places at Fulford School

Officers stated that further external responses had been received from Fulford Parish Council who advised that the proposal would cause substantial harm to the Fulford Village Conservation Area and the setting of the Fulford Road Conservation Area and that Development in Area A would dominate and harm the open setting of the former gatehouse for the park which was a listed building. They also felt that the lack of an open space contribution weighed heavily against the proposals in the planning balance and that very few public benefits had been identified and these did not outweigh the harm to heritage assets.

Officers advised that additional representations had been received from Fulford Friends who raised the concerns in relation to misleading comparisons made to the refused 2005 scheme,  misleading references to flooding in the area, the need for a full bat survey, harm to the conservation areas and listed building and harm to the historic setting of York. They advised that the proposals included no affordable housing, that a local green corridor would be interrupted with the loss of habitats, that no open space facilities would be provided on site and that no contribution had been offered towards off-site facilities. A letter outlining their main concerns for objection was circulated to Members.

With regard to further publicity and neighbour notification, Officers informed Members that an additional 15 letters had been received which raised objections similar to those already summarised at paragraph 3.53 of the main report and some new or different points. These included concerns  in relation to capacity on St Oswalds Road and potential for further congestion due to proposed limited parking, increased flood risk to surrounding properties and the wider river corridor as a result of changes in land levels and the introduction of walls, fences and gardens impeding flow of water. They also noted the need to retain the gap between Fulford Parish and Fishergate  and the loss of open space for care home residents.

With regard to the additional representations and consultation responses, officers advised that the majority of the issues had been discussed within section 4.0 of the officer’s report however they provided further responses in respect of flood risk including floor levels, post and rail fences, removing permitted development rights in garden areas, ecology, the impact of the proposal on bats and on green corridors and the consistency of decision making with regard to decisions in the green belt and elsewhere.

They then provided further information to clarify the sections of the report relating to relevant planning history, policy context, housing land supply, impact on heritage assets, flood risk and drainage, education provision and also provided a revised conclusion to include the reference to paragraph 134 of the NPPF and separate the aspects of contributions from the planning balance.

Officer advised that recommended condition 2 should be revised so add the following text: “Plot 6 to be House Type B as confirmed by Richard Wood Associates dated 20/04/2016” and that condition 9 be amended to amend the list of plans to refer to Drainage Layout - 34511 003K. They recommended that, should Members be minded to grant the application, a further condition be added to remove permitted development rights for fences forwards of plots 1,2 and 3 in the interest of conservation and to protect the root protection zone of trees.

Stephen Wilkinson, a local resident, addressed the committee in objection to the application. He informed Members that the proposed development failed to preserve or enhance the character of Fulford. He drew members attention to the high number of objections comments received and advised that, while there was a need for affordable homes, there was no justification for the damage to the conservation area for the provision of 14 high end properties.

Mrs Urmston then spoke as a local resident and also on behalf of Fulford Friends, in objection to the application. She stressed that the public benefits of the proposed development did not outweigh the harm to heritage assets and that the application failed in respect of the economic, social and environmental elements.

Representations were then heard from Mr Lindsay Cowle, an independent heritage consultant, who spoke on behalf of Fuford Friends with regard to the impact of the proposals on heritage assets.  A written statement was circulated to Members. Mr Cowle advised Members that the scheme was over intensive and inappropriate bearing in mind the location of the site within the conservation area and the scheme lacked a heritage input with no specialist heritage advice having been sought by the council to allow them to judge the heritage impact of the proposals.

Mr Richard Wood, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He reminded members that the scheme had now been approved twice by City of York Council and there were no material changes to what had been approved previously. With regard to the flood issue raised, he advised that it was only the lower levels of the gardens which were in flood zone 3.He informed members that the scheme provided much needed housing in a sustainable location and that members had previously given a clear and consistent view that they considered the details submitted to be acceptable.

Karin de Vries, Chair of Fulford Parish Council, expressed the Parish Council’s opposition to the application. She stressed that no heritage assessments had been carried out at any stage in the process and asked Members to consider whether they were certain as to whether there was only unsubstantial or insignificant harm. She expressed concern that the proposals would be harmful to the areas of open space and to the conservation area as described in the Fulford Village Conservation Area appraisal.

Officers confirmed that the council’s conservation architect had had input into the preparation of the Conservation Area appraisal and the view of the conservation architect on this proposal was that it constituted minor harm.

Members asked whether it was possible to remove permitted development rights (PDR) for changes to the area fronting onto St Oswalds Road. Officers advised that a condition could be imposed to remove PDR for the creation of driveways. Condition 11 (which prevented any structure, enclosure or building to be erected within FZ3) could be amended to make it explicit that fences should not be changed due to the impact on both conservation area and flooding.

Some Members commented that the scheme was significantly better than what had originally been proposed and expressed the view that they didn’t find significant harm. However others felt that conflicting advice had been received from officers on the important view from the Ings and the effect on the conservation area, and expressed the view that no added benefit to the city had been proven stating that they would prefer the applicant to come back with better scheme.

Resolved: 

That the application be approved subject to a Section 106 Agreement, the conditions listed in the report and the amended and additional conditions below to remove permitted development rights.

Amended Condition 2

As detailed in report with addition of following text: “Plot 6 to be House Type B as confirmed by Richard Wood Associates dated 20/04/2016”

Amended Condition 9

As detailed in report with amendment the list of plans to refer to Drainage Layout - 34511 003K

Additional Condition

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 Schedule 2 Part 2 Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Order 2015), (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order), no fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected between the front walls of plot nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the boundary of the application site with St Oswalds Road (other than those shown on drawing nos. Y81:822.03Q, Y81:822.28 and Y81:822.29).

Reason:  In the interests of the character and appearance of the conservation area and to protect the roots of the existing trees along the boundary of the site. 

Additional Condition

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 Schedule 2 Part 2 Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Order 2015), (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order), there shall be no formation, laying out or construction of a means of access to plots 1, 2 and 3 other than as shown on approved drawing no. Y81:822.03Q.

Reason:  In the interests of the character and appearance of the conservation area and to protect the roots of the existing trees along the boundary of the site. 

Reason:    

In accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF, the identified harm to heritage assets is outweighed by the application's public benefits of providing housing in a sustainable location within defined settlement limits and with good access to public and sustainable transport links and local services.  This is in line with the aim of the NPPF to boost, significantly, the supply of housing and to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes.  In terms of flood risk the site fails the sequential test as there appears to be reasonably available sites for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. However following consultation with the Environment Agency the development would be appropriately flood resilient and resistant, limited parts of three of the proposed houses would be in flood zone 2 (areas of medium risk of probability of river flooding) with the remainder within flood zone 1. Whilst paragraph 100 of the NPPF states that development should not be permitted in such cases, it is considered that on balance the development provides wider benefits with the provision of new housing and that the submitted flood risk assessment has demonstrated that the site can be safely developed without increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere. A Section 106 Agreement would fund contributions towards providing additional capacity at St Oswalds Primary school and Fulford Secondary School and improvements to bowling green facilities at Scarcroft Green.