Agenda item

Single storey extension and alterations to building to form volunteers centre with associated facilities and tool store (resubmission) [Fishergate Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Dr Richard Keesing for a single storey extension and alterations to building to form volunteers centre with associated facilities and tool store (resubmission) at York Cemetery Trust Kiosk, York Cemetery.

An officer update was given. This included clarification on the wording of paragraph 5.5 of the officer’s report and an update on additional representation received from the Flood Risk Management Team (FRMT). Following the advice of the FRMT it was recommended that an additional condition concerning drainage was imposed on any grant of planning approval.

Dr Richard Keesing (Applicant and Chair of Trustees at York Cemetery Trust), spoke in support of the application. He outlined the restoration work that had been undertaken at the cemetery and explained that the role of volunteers was essential to the running of the cemetery. He noted that there were no adequate facilities for volunteers and educational groups. This would be addressed by the proposal for a volunteers centre.

Clive Dawson, (Chairman of the Friends of York Cemetery), spoke in support of the application. He explained that there were up to 70 volunteers at the cemetery, who were missing a place to meet. He listed a number of projects with local schools, noting the need for an educational facility. He explained how the visitors centre would be used and would be of benefit to volunteers and visitors to the cemetery.

The architect for the application was in attendance to answer questions and in response to a question from Members clarified the location of roof lights on the building plans.

Following debate during which a number of Members commended the work of volunteers at the cemetery, it was:

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and following additional condition and informative:

Additional condition

9.      No development shall take place until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any balancing works and off site works, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Informative

The developer’s attention is drawn to Requirement H3 of the Building Regulations 2000 with regards to hierarchy for surface water dispersal and the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuD’s). Consideration should be given to discharge to soakaway, infiltration system and watercourse in that priority order. Surface water discharge to the existing public sewer network must only be as a last resort therefore sufficient evidence should be provided i.e. witnessed by CYC infiltration tests to BRE Digest 365 to discount the use of SuD’s.

If the proposed method of surface water disposal is via soakaways, these should be shown to work through an appropriate assessment carried out under BRE Digest 365, (preferably carried out in winter), to prove that the ground has sufficient capacity to except surface water discharge, and to prevent flooding of the surrounding land and the site itself. Testing should also be carried when proposing permeable paving.

City of York Council’s Flood Risk Management Team should witness the BRE Digest 365 test.

If SuDs methods can be proven to be unsuitable then In accordance with City of York Councils Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and in agreement with the Environment Agency and the York Consortium of Internal Drainage Boards, peak run-off from Brownfield developments must be attenuated to 70% of the existing rate (based on 140 l/s/ha of proven by way of CCTV drainage survey connected impermeable areas). Storage volume calculations, using computer modelling, must accommodate a 1:30 year storm with no surface flooding, along with no internal flooding of buildings or surface run-off from the site in a 1:100 year storm.  Proposed areas within the model must also include an additional 20% allowance for climate change. The modelling must use a range of storm durations, with both summer and winter profiles, to find the worst-case volume required.

If existing connected impermeable areas not proven then a Greenfield run-off rate based on 1.4 l/sec/ha or if shall be used for the above. For the smaller developments where the Greenfield run-off rate is less than 1.4 l/sec/ha and becomes impractical and unsustainable then a lowest rate of 2 l/sec shall be used.

Surface water shall not be connected to any foul / combined sewer, if a suitable surface water sewer is available.

The applicant should provide a topographical survey showing the existing and proposed ground and finished floor levels to ordnance datum for the site and adjacent properties. The development should not be raised above the level of the adjacent land, to prevent runoff from the site affecting nearby properties.

Details of the future management and maintenance of the proposed drainage scheme shall be provided.

Reason:     So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with these details for the proper and sustainable drainage of the site.

Reason:

             i.        The application site is located within the general extent of the York Green Belt and serves a number of Green Belt purposes. As such it falls to be considered under paragraph 143 of the NPPF which states that inappropriate development, is by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations. National planning policy dictates that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

            ii.        National planning policy (para. 145) states that the construction of new building in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate unless it falls within one of the exceptions to this outlined in paragraph 145 b of the NPPF.  The proposal has been assessed to represent appropriate facilities for the cemetery, however, the development is inappropriate development because, for the reasons outlined above, it fails to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and conflicts withthe purposes of including land  within the Green Belt, namely parts C and D of policy 134 of the NPPF (assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and preserving the setting and special character of historic towns), contrary to paragraph 145b of the NPPF.

           iii.        York Cemetery is a Grade II* listed Historic Park and Garden and contains a number of individually listed buildings, most notably the Chapel (Grade II*), Lodge (Grade II) and the railings along the boundary with Cemetery Road (Grade II).  When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.  It is considered that the siting of the proposed building would not harm the landscape and design heritage significances of the garden cemetery and the setting of the Lodge would not be harmed as a result of the current proposals.   The proposal does not result in harm to any of the heritage assets identified.

          iv.        It is also acknowledged that space within the Cemetery is at a premium and this proposal represents  the most reasonable siting for a building of this use without further harming  the Green Belt or causing harm to listed buildings (including the railings)  and the character and appearance and setting of the Historic Park and Garden as a whole.

                 v.            The extensions and alterations to an existing tool shed and toilet provision to provide a multi-purpose room would provide suitable faculties to assist volunteers in operating and maintaining the cemetery for the public benefit. Having attached substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt, it is therefore considered that the considerations set out in paragraphs 4.45 to 4.50, 5.3 and 5.4  of the Committee Report would collectively clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.  No other harm has been identified and that the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development exist.