Agenda item

Variation of condition 3 (approved plans), 5 (maximum building height) and 6 (parameter plans) of permitted application 17/01847/OUTM to allow increase in height of Block G, minor revisions to the proposed building footprint and associated changes to landscaping and public realm, provision of vehicular service access to Block G from Garden Place and increase in cycle parking, revisions to maximum foundation levels and allowance for location of below ground attenuation tank and lift pits, revisions to finished floor levels for the residential and commercial elements of the scheme and minor amendments to the site wide surface water drainage strategy. Removal of condition 40 (air quality monitoring) [Guildhall] [Site Visit] 

Members considered a major full application by Hungate (York) Regeneration Limited for variation of condition 3 (approved plans), 5 (maximum building height) and 6 (parameter plans) of permitted application 17/01847/OUTM to allow increase in height of Block G, minor revisions to the proposed building footprint and associated changes to landscaping and public realm, provision of vehicular service access to Block G from Garden Place and increase in cycle parking, revisions to maximum foundation levels and allowance for location of below ground attenuation tank and lift pits, revisions to finished floor levels for the residential and commercial elements of the scheme and minor amendments to the site wide surface water drainage strategy and removal of condition 40 (air quality monitoring).

Members were provided with an Officer update which reported that there had been no objection from the council archaeologist. There had also been an objection from the owner of 4 Peasholme Court expressing concern that an increase in the height of Block G would set a precedent for the height of the remaining blocks. Should this occur, an increase in the height of Block H would restrict the light into their property.

Dr Duncan Marks, representing York Civic Trust, spoke in objection to the application. York Civic Trust objected on the grounds of the increase in the height of block G and the overdevelopment of the site. Officers clarified that the total height of the building would not reach 35.7 metres.

Anna Turton, on behalf of Lichfields, the agent for applicant, spoke in support of the application. She stated that the variation for Block G had been brought forward on a build to rent scheme and she explained that the variations would provide community facilities such as a gym at the site.

Following Member questions to Officers, it was noted that:

·        The previous conditions would be carried forward as part of the application.

·        In regard to air quality, the proposed scheme changes, including that of the maximum height of Block G would result in no change to the residual effects and/or overall conclusions reached in the original Environmental Statement.

·        The highest element of the building to the Carmelite Street frontage would be no higher than the St John University accommodation block, with the exception of the corner element.

·        The design architects considered the revised plan to be an improvement in terms of the views along Stonebow..

Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to Section 106 Agreement as detailed in the report.

Reason:    

                   i.          To secure the obligations as from the existing outline permission.

                  ii.          The Section 73 application has been submitted in order to vary Condition 3 (plans), Condition 5 (maximum height) and Condition 6 (parameter plans) and to the removal of Condition 40 (air quality monitoring) of hybrid planning permission 17/01847/OUTM. 

                 iii.          The application involves no changes to the total number of dwellings or the amount of commercial floorspace approved in the outline consent but seeks permission for a number of revisions to the established parameters, with the key revision being an increase in the height of block G.

                iv.          It is not considered that the changes to the proposed plans will impact on either the sustainable aims of the development proposals, nor is it considered that the changes will have an adverse impact on the existing amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The key consideration therefore is the implications of the increase in the height of block G in terms of its scale and massing and any impact on the setting of heritage assets.

                 v.          As with the consented scheme, whilst officers consider the massing to the Stonebow elevation to cause some minor harm to the setting of the Conservation Area, the affected context is Stonebow itself rather than longer views to and from designated heritage assets.  In medium distances, the impact of this change on the historic environment is most evident in the view from Stonebow House.  The change in impact from the consented scheme is at worse considered to be low to negative to neutral however given the consideration that it is likely to produce a more attractive building design, the impact could be argued to be low to positive. Whilst the harm is assessed as being minor, such harm has been afforded considerable importance and weight in the overall planning balance.  The outcome of the assessment is that the benefits to the scheme including the provision of much needed dwellings in the City, outweigh the less than substantial harm identified. 

                vi.          In accordance with EIA regulations and procedure, the Environmental Statement (July 2015) submitted with the hybrid application has been reviewed and assessments undertaken to identify whether the proposed changes to the scheme parameters would result in any new or amended environmental effects. The ES Addendum (August 2017) identifies that the proposed scheme changes, including that of the maximum height of Block G, would result in no change to the residual effects and/or overall conclusions reached in the original ES. The development would fulfil the roles of sustainable development outlined in the NPPF and would otherwise accord with national and local planning policy.