Agenda item

The Groundsmans House (No 24) And Land To Rear Mount Vale Drive, York [18/01655/FULM]

Erection of 12no. dwellings within the grounds of The Mount School with access and servicing off Mount Vale Drive following demolition of dwelling at 24 Mount Vale Drive. (Micklegate) [site visit]


Members considered a Major Full Application from Mulgrave Developments Ltd and the Helmsley Group Ltd for the erection of 12 dwellings within the grounds of the Mount School with access and servicing off Mount Vale Drive following demolition of dwelling at 24 Mount Vale Drive.


Officers provided an update to the application highlighting two additional objections including one new issue relating to the provision of affordable housing and Section 106 agreement. Officers also highlighted amendments to condition 2 and 10, which are listed below.


Murray Rose, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. Mr Rose highlighted that the application did not meet the necessary requirements for the loss of sports pitches and that it did not say in the committee papers why this site was suitable for housing. Mr Rose also noted that replacement sports must already be ready prior to the loss of existing pitches and the suggested replacement would result in ‘intensification of usage’, prohibited by Sport England.


Mr Corbett then addressed the committee in objection to the application. Mr Corbett stated that the proposed houses planned for the site were not in keeping with the style of the area and that the houses being suggested were not what the City needed, due to not being affordable or ‘starter’ homes. Mr Corbett highlighted a number of City of York Council policies that this application contradicted.


Ms Joy White also addressed the committee in objection. Ms White stated that there had been no statement of community involvement prior to original objections and that consultation on the development had been weak. Ms White also stated that a more robust traffic assessment was needed and that a new application should be requested following a number of amendments, to ensure that the committee judge the correct information.


Mr Leeming and Mr Higgins then addressed the committee on behalf of the applicants.  Mr Leeming stated that this proposal had been brought forward to release capital from school assets in order to fund improvements to school facilities including a new performing arts centre and extensions to existing sports facilities. Mr Leeming went on to state that no objections had been received from statutory consultees and the loss of a private playing field had been agreed by Sport England.


In response to Member questions, Mr Higgins stated that the school currently had surplus sports facilities due the school having decreased in size.


Cllr Johnny Hayes then addressed the committee in objection. Cllr Hayes highlighted that all three ward councillors would object to this development due to the loss of playing field space that is needed in Micklegate. Cllr Hayes agreed with the comments of local residents on traffic, surface water drainage, flooding and questioned whether alternative uses of this site had been considered.


Members asked for clarification from the Council’s Flood Risk Engineer who informed the committee of assurances from Yorkshire Water regarding the surface and foul water drainage and capacity.


During debate, Members sympathised with the concerns and objections from residents and were largely in agreement that there were no adequate planning reasons to reject the application.


It was moved and seconded that approval be granted subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement. It was therefore:


Resolved:  That approval be granted subject to the conditions listed in the report and the amended wording of conditions 2 and 10 listed below and subject to the completion of the Section 106 agreement.


Reason:     There are alternative adequate facilities that would be provided (secured through a planning obligation) that means the loss of playing fields is not grounds to oppose the application considering NPPF paragraph 97. In assessment of the proposed development, it would not lead to undue harm to biodiversity, adequate tree cover (which is important for the setting) will be retained and the scheme would not have an undue effect on neighbour’s amenity. The access is adequate and the effect on the highway network would not be significant. In respect of these and other material considerations, the proposed planning obligation and the use of planning conditions can be imposed to broadly enable compliance with the NPPF; there are no adverse impacts of the development that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of providing housing, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.


Amendments to conditions:


Condition 2:


Approved plans corrected as follows –


Drawings reference – 1087

Location Plan – 01C

Site Layout – 06L

Boundary Treatments – 08J

Materials – 9I

Landscaping – Rosetta drawing 2895/4 revision E

Streetscapes – 10C

House Types and garages – 18A, 19B, 20D, 21D, 22E, 23, 25A, 27


Condition 10


Wording amended as follows:


The building envelope of all residential accommodation shall be constructed so as to achieve internal noise levels in habitable rooms of no greater than 35db LAeq (16 hour) during the day (07:00-23:00hrs) and 30db LAeq (8 hour) during the night (23:00-07:00 hours). Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority noise levels shall not exceed 45db (A) on more than 10 occasions in any night time period in bedrooms. These noise levels shall be observed with adequate ventilation provided.

Supporting documents:


Back to the top of the page