Agenda item

Erection of a four storey building comprising  18 apartments [Micklegate Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application by David Wilson Homes Yorkshire East for the erection of a four storey building comprising of 18 apartments.

Officers confirmed that the adopted Interim Affordable Housing Thresholds 2015 applied in respect of consideration of this proposal and explained how this impacted on the proposal. They also clarified some amendments to the report in relation to heights and distances from buildings surrounding the proposed development, these were as follows:

1)   Paragraph 4.10 of the report should read “ 11.4 metres to parapet level..”

2)   The relative heights of the proposed building would be 11.4 metres high to parapet level, 13.203 metres to the highest point of the roof and 24.78 metres AOD

3)   The existing apartment block to the east was11.265 metres to parapet level, 13.325 metres to the highest point of the roof and 27.4 metres AOD

4)   The previously approved town house at the junction of Clock Tower Way and Campleshon Road is 9.345 metres to parapet level, 10.85 metres to the highest point of the roof and 25.45 metres AOD

5)   The built footprint of the proposed scheme would cover 506 sq metres, the apartment block to the east covers 541 sq metres and the approved scheme for the site 467 sq metres.

They advised that the sunlight and daylight assessment for the scheme had been prepared by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) and it confirmed compliance with the standards laid out in their publication “Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practise”. It confirmed that all windows on the second floor of Block A would receive light levels within guidelines for both day light and sunlight. Three windows on the first floor would be below guidelines in terms of daylight however two of those are also served by other windows which comply with the guidelines. Two windows fell below the guidelines in terms of sunlight, one of which is also served by a further window which complied with the guidelines, the second was a bed room where access to sunlight was less significant.

John Young, a local resident, addressed the committee in objection to the application. He stated that the lack of sufficient parking for the proposed blocks will exacerbate the already troublesome parking situation in the area. Mr Young pointed out that there had been two recent traffic accidents caused by the parking issues at this site and that road safety is decreasing around the major junction in this area.

Colin Spence, also a local resident, spoke in objection to the proposal stating that the discrepancies in building heights and distances have been misleading. Mr Spence also stated that one of the windows identified by officers as not meeting the daylight/sunlight guidelines was in fact a primary window on his property.

Janet Spence, spoke as a local resident, in objection to the proposal. Mrs Spence did not agree with officers that the new building was ‘density appropriate’. She stated that the amended application did not allow for significant landscaping, had a detrimental impact on local amenities and was indicative of ‘over-development’. Mrs Spence believed that a smaller build with a lower overall height was required on this site.

Eamon Keogh spoke in support of the application on behalf of O’Neill Associates. Mr Keogh stated that there is significant need for the development and that the style and proportion of the proposed build, matched the style of the area. Mr Keogh noted that the separation distances between buildings were deemed acceptable and that the height of the building was reduced following consultation with conservation officers. He mentioned that this proposal was not a radical departure from the current scheme in the area.

Councillor J Hayes, Ward Councillor for Micklegate, then addressed the committee. He stated that he had a great deal of sympathy for the residents who had spoken in objection and that he agreed the development would have a detrimental impact on the community. He also stated that he felt this development had been shoehorned onto the site and urged the committee to refuse the application.

In response to a speakers’ comments, officers provided clarification with regard to sunlight/daylight guidelines, deviations from previously agreed applications and also in relation to the level of importance of the previous masterplan.

Some members noted that there were significant changes from the original plan and that there was much sympathy for the residents in the area who were concerned with parking, the impact of the development on their community and the scale of the development.

Councillor Carr moved, and Councillor Crawshaw seconded, a motion to refuse the application on the grounds that it would be detrimental to visual amenity and the street scene, due to the scale and massing of the development, traffic generation, removal of parking spaces and potential increase in transient population which would lead to a less socially sustainable development. On being put to the vote, the motion fell.

Several Members  did not think that there were adequate reasons  to object to the proposal. Councillor Shepherd then moved, and Councillor Flinders seconded, a motion to approve the application as recommended by officers subject to the Section 106 agreement and conditions listed in the report. On being put to the vote, the motion was carried and it was:

Resolved:  That on completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure the provision of three “affordable” housing units within the development, together with  a financial contribution of £1,920 towards the operation of the City Car Club Scheme and its dedicated spaces at the development and a financial contribution towards cycle ownership/one (no) annual bus pass for each apartment owner on first occupation, DELEGATED authority be given to the Assistant Director (Planning and Public Protection) to APPROVE the application subject to the conditions listed in the report.

Reason:     The proposal has been amended since submission to allow for removal of the previously intended fifth storey.  It is felt that the proposal as amended would not give rise to harm to the setting of the Terry's Clock Tower. The amended scheme would reflect the form of the adjacent apartment block and would not materially impact upon the visual amenity of the wider street scene. There would be some impact upon residential amenity of the apartment block to the east- however again it would reflect the pattern of development previously approved. Requirements for provision of affordable housing and the encouragement of sustainable transport modes are engaged and those would be secured by means of a Section 106 Agreement. Such requirements are in compliance with Regulations 122 and 123 of the 2014 CIL Regulations as fairly and reasonably relating to the permitted development.