Agenda item

Outline application for mixed use B1 and B8 development on land to the east of Centurion Park (layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping) and residential development comprising 12 no. dwellings to land lying to the south of Centurion Park (siting and access only) (resubmission). [Skelton, Rawcliffe and Clifton Without Ward]

Members considered an outline application, submitted by Keyland Gregory Ltd, for mixed use B1 and B8 development on land to the east of Centurion Park (layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping) and residential development comprising 12 dwellings to land lying to the south of Centurion Park (siting and access only).

Officers updated that additional representations had been received from a resident of Thorntree Grove and these were distributed to Members at the meeting for information.

Representations were received from a local resident who spoke in objection to the application and said that the land was designated as employment land and should therefore be used as such. He said that the applicant wanted to erect housing to make the application financially viable and was not happy that Members ‘underwrite’ this kind of financial return.  He also expressed concerns regarding access to the development.

Representations were received in objection from a resident of Hornbeam Close, who expressed the view that the land was designated for employment use and therefore Members should not agree to a change of land use to residential. He also raised concerns regarding loss of security and community and a probable increase in traffic in the area.

Representations were received on behalf of Clifton without Parish Council who recommended that Hornbeam Close remain a cul-de-sac and that the Sub-Committee should refuse the application.

Representations were received from the applicant’s agents and they said that their client had a workforce of approximately 90 persons and were looking to expand by another 15 to 20 in the next 15 months.  They said that without residential development to support the building of light industrial the scheme would not be financially viable.

Councillor Moore stood down from the Committee and spoke from the floor as Ward Councillor. He said that there were various issues regarding this application including:

• This should have been two separate applications
• The application made was erroneous:
  • Incorrect information had been submitted
  • The site plan failed to show the land within the ownership and/or control of the applicant

·        The application would have a considerable negative impact on neighbouring properties.

·        The applicant had failed to address Policy E3b of the Local Plan, detailed in the Officer’s comments at para 4.3 on page 35 of the report.

·        The applicant had not justified the loss of employment land as referred to in the Officer’s comments in para 4.5, also on page 35 of the report.

·        Planning Policy Statement 1 states that good design is indivisible from good planning. In Councillor Moore’s view the impact of the access to the proposed residential area was certainly not good design.

Members clarified with the agents that they were saying the scheme could not go ahead unless there was approval for the residential side of the development. The agents said that this was correct.

Members discussed the fact that this was designated as employment land and if the application were to be approved then all efforts at balancing land usage would be lost.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.

REASON:                             

(i)                 The application site lies within an area which is designated as a standard employment site.  It is considered that it has not been proven that there is a sufficient supply of employment land to meet immediate and longer term requirements or that the proposed change of use would lead to significant benefits to the local economy.  Therefore the proposed residential development is considered contrary to Policy E3b of the City of York Draft Local Plan.

(ii)               The application site is within the urban area and it is considered to be in a sustainable location.  The proposed residential development has split the site to create small unused areas of land to the north and west of the site.  Due to its location and size, this land would not be capable of further development in the future.  Therefore it is considered that the proposed residential development would not lead to an effective and efficient use of this site.  This could place development pressure on land within less sustainable locations in the future.  The splitting of the site has also artificially given the site an area of below 0.3 ha and therefore the requirement for affordable housing on the site has been avoided.  Therefore the proposal is considered contrary to PPS1 and PPS3 and the City of York Council affordable housing advice note.

(iii)             It is considered that the increased traffic along Hornbeam Close would harm the level of amenity for residents.  Hornbeam Close is a cul-de-sac serving 12 dwellings; the increased use of this road for cars accessing the proposed new dwellings would harm the living conditions which local residents have come to expect.  The new access road and footpath is within 1 metre of 12 Hornbeam Close which would cause significant harm to the living conditions of the residents of this property.

(iv)              The proposed access route to the new dwellings through Hornbeam Close is not considered suitable to serve an additional 12 dwellings.  Hornbeam Close has been designed with traffic calming measures suitable for a cul-de-sac of this size.  Significantly increasing the traffic levels using Hornbeam Close would change the character and functionality of this Close which could cause harm to public safety.