Local democracy during coronavirus

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates for more information on meetings and decisions.

Agenda item

Block D Hungate Development Site, Hungate, York [18/02946/FULM]

Erection of a residential apartment block, landscaping and associated works (Block D) [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

Minutes:

Members considered a major full application from Hungate (York) Regeneration Limited for the erection of a residential apartment block, landscaping and associated works (Block D).

 

An officer update was given in which Members were advised that revised plans had been received which detailed changes to cycle parking provision. This change was reflected in updated plans condition (Condition 2). Concerning the education contribution, there been ongoing discussion with Education as to whether the revised contribution towards Education met all of the CIL tests. Therefore the recommendation that the Assistant Director Planning and Public Protection be granted delegated powers to determine the education contribution to be secured in the Section 106 Agreement. The additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and the recommendation are unchanged from the published report. 

 

Following the update, officers confirmed that:  

Section 6(i)b of the report should state paragraph 5.8 above.

CYC did not have a log of complaints referred to in the complaints procedure referenced in the CEMP.  It was suggested that a copy of this log could be requested from the applicant. 

Officers would look into the funding for play equipment from the previous S106 Agreement.

 

Suzanne Yates (Agent for the Applicant) spoke in support of the application. She noted that the application included a sixth floor extension and removal of the car park in the basement (car parking spaces had been included in earlier phases) . The visual impact of this was limited and there was no overall increase in the building height.  She added that the building adhered to a high level of sustainability.

 

Suzanne Yates was asked and explained that the complaints had been adhered to and there was a full time Community Liaison Officer in place. She was asked and explained the actions taken when there had been breaches in working conditions.

 

Cllr D Craghill (Ward Councillor) spoke on the application. She noted that it was a sustainable building in a high density location. She expressed concern that the blocks were too high and close together and that the main problem was a lack of affordable housing.

 

 

Resolved: That;

(i)           Permission be granted subject to:

 

a)        Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure the following obligations:

 -   an education contribution;

 -   affordable housing – provision of 17% affordable housing for the 186 units as approved with 20% affordable housing for the additional 10 apartments;

-    off-site sports provision – financial contribution of £63,900 towards improvements to Hull Road Park buildings, changing and ancillary facility improvements and additional sports facilities at Burnholme Community Health Hub; and multi-use games area within Heworth Without.   

-      off-site amenity and play space provision – financial contribution of £100,004 towards projects at St. Nicholas Fields, Museum Gardens and Foss Islands Path.

-      sustainable travel - payment to the occupier upon first occupation of each residential unit either a travel pass or a non-transferable voucher to be used to purchase a bicycle.

-      car club payment of £37,200;

 

b)        Prior completion of any necessary Section 106 Deed of Variation (referred to in paragraph 5.7 above); and

 

c)        The conditions outlined in the officer’s report and update.

 

(ii)      The Assistant Director for Planning and Public Protection be granted delegated powers to determine the education contribution to be secured in the Section 106 Agreement;

 

(iii)     The Assistant Director for Planning and Public Protection be granted delegated powers to finalise the terms and details of the Section 106 Agreement and any necessary Deed of Variation to the existing section 106 agreement as set out in this report; and

 

(iv)    The Assistant Director for Planning and Public Protection be granted delegated powers to determine the final detail of the planning conditions.

 

Reason:

                             i.              This application seeks permission for revised proposals for Block D, a part six / part seven storey building comprising 196 residential apartments.  Whilst there is an extant full permission, the scheme under consideration is a stand alone application and has been assessed on its own merits.

 

                            ii.              One of the key revisions to the extant scheme is an increase to the footprint of the top floor accommodation. The visual impact of this revision relates to streets that are part of the Hungate masterplan development area, and as such Officers consider it to be an acceptable increase.

 

                           iii.              In terms of elevational treatment, Officers had raised concerns throughout the application process over the level five (six storey) elevation design. The latest revisions are considered to address these concerns by including a good degree of modelling to this level to make the overall building appear as a genuine series of modulated bays.  In general terms and in the context of this being a large and visually imposing building, Officers consider the elevations to be well composed with the design components handled with a generally pleasing rhythm and used consistently and logically.

 

                          iv.              The scheme involves the removal of the basement car park, representing a net reduction of 44 spaces site-wide. Whilst concerns have been expressed that the implications of this reduction are that Hungate residents will park elsewhere (outside of the site) to the detriment of the Guildhall ward local residents, Highways Officers have confirmed this to be unlikely given that the area around the site is covered either by resident parking areas or TROs such that there is very limited on street parking that can be legally used. With respects to cycle parking, amended details, which improve the quality of the provision, is awaited.

 

                           v.              With reference to the impact on undesignated heritage assets (archaeological features and deposits), the harm to result is considered to be less than substantial and is outweighed by the economic and social benefits of the development in terms of the provision of new housing and the opportunity it presents for regeneration in the area, and has been mitigated by the measures detailed in the WSI. In the context of Paragraph 199 of the NPPF, the ability to record evidence has been considered as part of the planning balance in deciding whether the harm should be permitted, but has not been a decisive factor.

 

                          vi.              It is not considered that the changes to the proposed scheme for Block D will impact on either the sustainable aims of the development proposals, nor is it considered that the changes will have an adverse impact on the existing amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the amenities of occupants of this development.

 

                         vii.              In accordance with EIA regulations and procedure, an ES Update (December 2018) has been prepared to consider the environmental implications of this revised scheme for Block D in the context of its position within the wider Hungate development site, and to assess the potential for the latest design proposals to result in new or amended environmental effects.  The ES Update (December 2018) identifies that the proposed development will result in no change to the overall conclusions reached in the original ES (July 2015), as updated by the ES Addendum (August 2017), which concluded that the development proposals would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment or other amenity considerations. The development would fulfil the roles of sustainable development outlined in the NPPF and would otherwise accord with national and local planning policy.

 

                       viii.              Any approval is subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to cover the following matters, to include any necessary consequential variations being made to the original Section 106 obligation.

 

a)        Affordable housing – provision of 17% affordable housing for the 186 units as approved with 20% affordable housing for the additional 10 apartments.

b)        Education – a contribution of £82,806 towards intervention pods at Fishergate Primary school and £83,316 towards pre-school provision.

c)        Off-site sports provision – Financial contribution of £63,900 towards improvements to Hull Road Park buildings, changing and ancillary facility improvements and additional sports facilities at Burnholme Community Health Hub; and multi-use games area within Heworth Without.

d)        Off-site amenity and play space provision – Financial contribution of £100,004 towards projects at St. Nicholas Fields, Museum Gardens and Foss Islands Path.

e)        Sustainable Travel - Payment to the occupier upon first occupation of each residential unit either a travel pass or a non-transferable voucher to be used to purchase a bicycle.

f)          Car Club payment of £37,200.

 

                          ix.              With the exception of the contribution towards Education (reference paragraph 4.44, update to be provided at the Meeting), these contributions are considered to be:

a)        necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

b)        directly related to the development; and

c)        fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development,

and therefore comply with Regulation 122 of the 2010 CIL Regulations.  These contributions would also comply with Regulation 123.

 

                           x.              In light of the above, the proposal, subject to conditions and planning obligations, is considered to be acceptable in planning terms and complies with national and local planning policy. 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page