Agenda item

Conversion and part demolition of former care home (use class C2) to provide 32 no. apartments (use class C3) with external alterations, new raised roof and first floor rear extension. [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application by Mr R Slater for the conversion and part demolition of a former care home (use class C2) to provide 32 apartments (use class C3) with external alterations, new raised roof and first floor rear extension.

Officers provided a update to committee members. They advised that a revised consultation response had been received from the Public Realm Officer in relation to contributions for open space. The report made reference to a requirement of £8,520 towards off site sports provision. The Public Realm Officer had now advised that the City Walls (Lord Mayors Walk), and the former St Michael’s Churchyard (Lord Mayor’s Walk/Monkgate corner), were recognised amenity areas. They had not been the subject of 5 obligations. The value of the additional contribution was £4,530 and this would be subject to a section 106 agreement in addition to those items identified in Section 6.0 of the Committee report.

In relation to affordable housing provision, it was considered that the development was subject to the Vacant Building Credit, (VBC). The VBC comes into play where a vacant building is brought back into any lawful use, or is demolished to be replaced by a new building. It provides a financial credit equivalent to the existing gross floor space of the existing building. On that basis the provision relates to 20% of the increase in floor space only. The applicant had advised that they had contacted a number of registered providers, none of whom had confirmed interest in taking on the unit proposed. On that basis a commuted sum was recommended.

With regard to space standards, officers advised that correspondence had been received that raised concerns regarding the size of some of the accommodation. It further made reference to a  Draft Subdivision of Dwellings SPD which was approved by Cabinet in December 2012, and incorporated the approaches in the  4th Set of Changes to the City of York Local Plan (April 2005). DCLG produced a new document 'Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described Space Standards' in March 2015, which set national standards.  However, advice in the Planning Practice Guidance stated that where a local planning authority wished to require internal space standards, they should only do so by reference in their Local Plan to the new nationally described space standards in the DCLG document. A subsequent Ministerial Statement stated that

"From October 2015: Existing Local Plan, neighbourhood plan and supplementary planning document policies relating to water efficiency, access and internal space should be interpreted by reference to the nearest equivalent new national technical standard. Decision takers should only require compliance with the new technical standards where there is a relevant current Local Plan policy."

In this case City of York did not have an adopted plan, and the Pre-Publication draft carried very little weight at this stage of its process. The size of the flats was considered in terms of amenity, and whilst some of them were small, they appeared to provide an acceptable level of accommodation for future occupants in terms of space for a double bed, bathroom, seating area and kitchen.

With regard to parking, during the site visit, a neighbouring occupier had raised concern that the development would increase competition for parking along Penley’s Grove Street. The site fell within R10 Resident parking zone, and it had been agreed that the site will be excluded from the zone. It was not however possible to remove it from the adjacent parking zone (T7) which included Penley’s Grove. Parking on that street was open to permit holders and 60 minute pay and display during the day. From 8pm onwards it was unrestricted. In view of this there was potential for occupants of the flats to park on this street, however the level was unquantifiable. Network Management Officers had advised that in their opinion it would be more attractive for residents to acquire a Minster Badge and park in the nearby Monk Bar car park from 6pm. Whilst officers considered that there was a potential for an impact on parking on Penley’s Grove Street, and this might affect the ability of residents on that street to park, it was not considered that a reason for refusal on that basis could be sustained given the sustainable location of the site.

Officers advised that condition 10 (cycle parking)should be deleted as provision was shown on the approved plans and that an additional condition be added to cover vehicle turning areas,

Waste Management Officers had confirmed that the location and capacity of the refuse area was acceptable. However they recommended clarification that the bins could be accessed even if the bollard that securedthe car park was in place. It was therefore recommended that a condition be imposed to that effect. For clarification, officers advised that paragraph 1.2 of the report made reference to the demolition of the existing single storey part of the building. However, it was only part of this extension that would be demolished.

Officers advised that the recommendation should be revised to give delegated authority to the Assistant Director to negotiate the off-site affordable housing contribution.

Janet O’Neil, the applicant’s agent, addressed the committee in support of the application. She advised that the decision to retain the two smaller dormer windows was to allow better use of the roof space; the design had been amended to protect nearby trees; parking spaces would be allocated on a first come first served basis and potential residents would know whether they had a parking space or not and other options for parking nearby before they committed to purchase.

Members acknowledged that residents had been concerned about the future of Grove House and disturbance which might be caused by demolition and prolonged activity on the site. They noted that the two residents who had raised concern had had their fears allayed at the site visit. Members agreed that the proposals would bring the site back into use and felt that the proposal was an improvement on the current building and would fit in better in relation to St John Street. They noted that it was in a sustainable location and expressed pleasure that the lime trees would be preserved as these would help define a less overbearing development.

Resolved:  That DELEGATED authority be given to the Assistant Director (Planning and Public Protection) to negotiate the off-site affordable housing contribution(index linked) based on 20% of the additional floorspace to be constructed on completion of S106 agreement to secure the affordable housing contribution and contributions of £8520 (index-linked) towards off site outdoor sports provision, £4,530 (index linked) towards amenity open space and up to £5000 to amend the existing Traffic Regulation Order in respect of the Resident’s Parking Zone and to extend existing parking restrictions, to APPROVE the application subject to the conditions listed in the report, the deletion of condition 10 (cycle parking), the additional conditions listed below to cover turning area and access to refuse and recycling bins.

                   Additional Condition

                   No part of the site shall come into use until the turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Thereafter the turning areas shall be retained free of all obstructions and used solely for the intended purpose.

Reason:   To enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear thereby ensuring the safe and free passage of traffic on the public highway.

Additional Condition

The bollards within the access to the site shown on the proposed site plan NOR – 472- 002 14 Rev F shall be so located as to enable access for refuse and recycling bins.

Reason: In the interest of satisfactory waste management.

Reason:     In the planning balance, the site is previously developed land within a sustainable location. The provision of 32 flats will contribute towards City of York Council's housing supply.

It is considered that the revised plans have addressed concerns identified in relation to the plans as submitted in relation to the impact of the development on the trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order that front the site, and in relation to access concerns and neighbour amenity.

In accordance with paragraph 129 of the NPPF, revised plans were sought that addressed concern in relation to the impact of the development on the significance of the Conservation Area. Great weight has been given to the minor harm identified in relation to the revised plans on the setting of the conservation area in accordance with paragraph 132 of the NPPF. The harm identified is very minor, and it is considered that the public benefits of the delivery of residential development, in a sustainable location, outweighs that harm. (para134)