Agenda item

Land To The South Of Field Lane, Heslington [18/01416/REMM]

Reserved matters application for approval of siting, design, external appearance and landscaping to provide student accommodation (providing 1,480 bed spaces) including the provision of two colleges and residential blocks within a central green space, the realignment of Lakeside Way following outline permissions 15/02923/OUT [Hull Road Ward]

Minutes:

[Note: Councillor Cullwick withdrew from the meeting during consideration of this item and took no part in the debate or decision thereon.]

 

Members considered a Major Reserved Matters Application from the University Of York And Graham Construction Limited to approve the siting, design, external appearance and landscaping to provide student accommodation (providing 1,480 bed spaces) including the provision of two colleges and residential blocks within a central green space, the realignment of Lakeside Way following outline permissions 15/02923/OUT.

 

In their update, Officers advised that one letter of objection has been received from a resident of School Lane, Heslington.  A summary of the objections raised by the resident was noted.  Members were further advised of variations to Conditions 1 and 2. A Construction Environmental Management Plan (Biodiversity) had been submitted and agreed by officers and it was recommended that Condition 1 (plan references) be amended to include this. Condition 2 had been reworded following the submission of additional information. Officers advised that the additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and the recommendation remained unchanged from the published report. 

 

In response to questions from Members, Officers confirmed that:

·        Measures had been taken to negotiate on public access around parts of Cluster 4 with the Applicant.

·        The University proposed that for the safety of students, it was proposed that access to both colleges would be through a central hub.

·        Lakeside Way, the central green area and the pathway at the top of the site would be publicly accessible.

·        With regard to the University guaranteeing accommodation to all first year and foundation year students (including overseas students), any remaining vacancies would be offered to returning students. The proposals will provide additional capacity for students to live on campus, rather than in private rented sector elsewhere in the City. The Council would want to see that accommodation was provided on campus as a first point of call.

·        There were no Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) and two oak trees would be removed. However, there was a substantial landscaping plan.

·        The buildings had been moved further back and there would be a loss of grassland because of the nature of the buildings. Students would not be able to access the grassland and could only access the lakeside edge via the boardwalk. The detailed landscaping scheme was detailed in Condition 4.

 

Alan Richards spoke in objection to the application on behalf of a number of Badger Hill residents.  He detailed the parking issues currently experienced by Badger Hill residents which had worsened over recent years. He noted that many vehicles were parked or badly parked by students and tutors, causing a safety risk. He suggested that this may be exacerbated by cars from the new campus being parked in Badger Hill. He asked the Council to work with residents and noted that the residents group would report illegally parked cars.

 

Mr Richards was asked and explained that:

·        In terms of liaison between the residents group and the University, two members of the residents group had rejoined the University’s good neighbourhood group, which met 2-3 times a year.

·        The residents parking zone covered half of Badger Hill and in his opinion having lived in the area for 30 years, the number and size of parked cars had increased.

·        The University had not been specifically clear about who to contact about cars/parking and he did not agree that the new development would not have an adverse effect on parking in the area.

 

Stephen Talboys (Applicant - University of York) spoke in support of the application. He noted that the scheme aimed to reduce the number of students living off campus. He noted that the development had been given consent by the Secretary of State and that it was not possible to build at either end of campus. The aim of the accommodation was to close the gap between Campus East and Campus West.  He explained that the University could take action on anti social behaviour and he added that the streetwise scheme had worked well. He noted the University was proud of its ecology and diversity and had green flag status. He noted the travel arrangements in place.

 

Mr Tallboys was asked and noted that:

·        The University car parks were full most days

·        The University would be happy to discuss the parking scheme in Badger Hill

·        The vast majority of car parking was taken up by staff. Students were charged £35 per year and staff up to £400 a year for a parking permit. The permit allowed the holder to park anywhere on campus. The car parks were well used.

·        There was no correlation between the number of beds in university accommodation and number of parked cars.

·        Students did not have to declare to the university if they had a car.

·        If the development did not go ahead, students would potentially live in the city.

·        The good neighbourhood group had been in place since November 2016. The group began meeting again Summer 2018 and the University was hoping to reinstate another similar group that had previously met.

·        If parking in Badger Hill was shown to be a problem, the University would be prepared to look at how this could be mitigated.

·        There was a bus link between the two campuses and the 66 bus which ran between the university and city centre. There was a cycleway and University would be prepared to look at it.

·        The good neighbourhood scheme was not the same as the Heslington East Forum and the University would like to see both groups meeting in the future.

·        The 1480 bed spaces were not for additional students and it was explained how those spaces would be filled.

·        Students were discouraged from using private vehicles to access the campus unless there was a medical or work placement reason.

·        The three travel surveys had been undertaken annually and the results submitted to the case officer (this was confirmed by Janet O’Neill, Agent for the Applicant).

 

Julie White (Agent for the Applicant – Developer) spoke in support of the application. She advised that under the 2007 planning permission, the site had been allocated for development as part of the planning condition. The recently approved master plan had identified the site as a gateway to the other campuses, and the site provided an attractive space from the east when approached from the west. Ms White outlined the type of accommodation on offer and noted the biodiversity on the site which provided 5000 square metres of planting.

 

In response to Member questions, Ms White explained:

·        The reason for the removal of the two oak trees. They were not specimen trees and it was not viable for them to be retained. If kept they would affect the location of the building and it was explained that the planting was in place to main the habitat value.

·        The developer was confident that the biodiversity enhancements would replicate what was already there.

 

Cllr K Aspden (Fulford and Heslington Ward Councillor) spoke on behalf of Heslington Parish Council. He explained that the Parish Council objected to the siting of the accomodation and were concerned about Heslington residents’ loss of amenity due to noise, litter and antisocial behaviour.  He asked for a number of conditions which included land mitigation regarding the parking nuisance, the continuation of the annual parking and travel survey and the continuation of the Heslington East Community Forum.

 

Cllr Aspden was asked and noted that:

·        There was a consensus and disappointment that the accommodation and shops were not grouped together

·        There was concern about low level anti social behaviour. There were schemes in place which occasionally made a difference but these needed to be all year round rather than term time only.

·        There was a host of ongoing parking complaints in Fulford and Heslington village.

·        With regard to biodiversity, Heslington village would like to see as much of a buffer around the site as possible.

 

Cllr Pavlovic (Ward Councillor) spoke on the application. He raised a number of points noting that the traffic survey would end in 2021, that the University’s related parking exceeded thresholds in a number of areas, and that the parking restrictions in residents parking scheme only covered part of Badger Hill. He suggested that the impact of the existing scheme was that parking would get worse and he added that dealing with complaints about non residents parking constituted a large amount of time for Ward Councillors.  He requested that the application be deferred.

 

In response to questions Cllr Pavlovic explained that

·        The deferment of the application would enable a detailed traffic survey to be undertaken

·        He would like respark to cover all of Badger Hill and the Newland Park estate

·        The university could be allowed to build extra car parks.

 

Members debated the application in detail. Councillor Shepherd then moved and Councillor Carr seconded deferment of the application on the grounds that an up to date traffic survey needed to be undertaken.

 

On being put to the vote the motion fell.

 

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the Conditions listed in the report and the following two additional informatives, amended Condition 4 and variations to Conditions 1 and 2:

 

                   Additional informative

                   The university shall to ensure that meaningful discussions are held with the two residents’ groups.

 

                   Additional informative

The university to introduce a scheme similar to Nightsafe.

 

                   Amended Condition 4

Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plans, prior to the construction above foundation level of:

 

i.        North college

 

ii.       South college

 

iii.      Blocks 21 and 22

 

a detailed landscaping scheme shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority.  For each point part of the development (i-iii) the landscaping scheme shall include the species, stock size, density (spacing), and position of trees, shrubs and other plants, seeding mix, sowing rate, hard landscaping materials, lighting, means of enclosure and street furniture, including the canopy walkways.  The approved scheme shall be implemented within the first planting season prior to occupation of the college and/or blocks to which it relates and shall be for the lifetime of the scheme.  Any trees or plants which within within the lifetime of the development from the substantial completion of the planting and development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority agrees alternatives in writing.

 

Condition 1 (plan references) to include:

Construction Environmental Management Plan (Biodiversity) Ref R-3459-05 rev A.

 

Condition 2 amended to:

The submitted Construction Environmental Management Plan (Biodiversity) Ref R-3459-05 rev A shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period of North and South Colleges and Gateway Green (including blocks 21 and 22).

 

Reason: The site is a constrained site in terms of its position adjacent to the Lake and Detention Basin edge which has an ecological value. The CEMP (Biodiversity) is required to minimise the impact of demolition, site preparation and construction on habitats and wildlife.

 

Reasons:

 

                     i.        The principle of the use of the site as part of a new campus was accepted when the Secretary of State granted outline consent in 2007 (and subsequently amended). The application will comply with the requirement for the developed footprint not to exceed 23% of the total area. This reserved matters application is also in line with the updated Design Brief including Masterplan and generally the buildings heights will be contained within the mature tree canopy and conform to the height parameters set out in plan C(iii) of the outline consent.  The outline consent also imposed a number of conditions, relating to construction noise, plant and machinery, sustainability requirements whilst also establishing highways and drainage strategies, which this application will conform to.

 

                    ii.        The provision of student accommodation on campus is supported by emerging policies (Publication Draft Local Plan 2018) H7, ED1 and ED3 whilst also complying with policy ED10 of the DCLP2005.

 

                   iii.        Throughout the application, negotiations and discussions have been undertaken in order that the proposed development addresses the concerns in respect to mitigating harm to the biodiversity and ecology at the Lake.  This has resulted in revisions to the position and density of development at South College; the residential blocks have been removed from the Lake edge and this will allow increasing areas of specific ecological mitigation.  Whilst concerns have been raised through the application in regards to restricting public access to the Lake, which they can currently do at the moment, this has had to be balanced with the ecological enhancements. 

 

                  iv.        Wider development impacts are controlled via conditions imposed on the outline consent, with specific conditions to the development of student accommodation recommended.  These include a construction environmental management plan (CEMP) to minimise construction impacts, hard and soft landscaping scheme including management of the biodiversity of the site.

 

                             v.            In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed scheme would not have adverse impact that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, taking into account the details of the scheme and any material planning considerations. The proposal is thus sustainable development for which the NPPF carries a presumption in favour. As such, the proposal is considered to accord with national guidance in the NPPF and the Draft Development Control Local Plan Policies subject to other relevant conditions.

Supporting documents:

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page