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

2 St Aubyns Place York YO24 1EQ [19/00557/FUL]

Erection of replacement dwelling (resubmission). [Micklegate]

[site visit]


Councillor Orrell left the meeting before the presentation and discussion of this item.


Members considered a full application from The Handa Family

for the erection of a replacement dwelling (resubmission).


Officers updated the Committee on the application and reported 3 further responses from local residents which had been received but not previously reported to Members (these can be found attached to the Agenda item 3b). 


Officers reported that at the site visit they had been asked to comment about the need to close the footpath(s) parallel to the front boundary of the property and / or footpath on Tadcaster Road /The Mount immediately to the East of the property during construction works and whether consideration had been given to the requirements of the Equalities Act in terms of maintaining appropriate access on the public highway.  A full response to this question can be found attached to the Agenda item 3b). 


Mr Matthew Margetts, Agent for the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.  He explained that he had been working with the Council’s Planning Team for two years to come up with a family home with a good design that was respectful to the neighbours.  In response to questions regarding the environmental impact of the new build,  Mr  Margetts explained that the new build would have a high standard energy efficient heating system. 


A Member expressed concerns that the build had been used as staff quarters for the hotel for 20 years and that this build could possibly serve as an annex to the Elmbank Hotel.


Mrs Angela Wheatcroft, local resident, spoke against the application.  She considered that it would be an expensive waste of money if this application were granted as little would be achieved, only one extra bedroom.  Drilling below ground level along with all of the work involved would be an overdevelopment of this site which is sensitive.  She was concerned that the 1930’s materials set in the context of existing house would be wasted.  She raised further concern regarding the courtyard, which is north facing, therefore much of the court yard would be dark with lots of moisture and moss there. 


Dr Jens Wiebe, a local resident next door to the premises spoke against the application.  Dr Wiebe expressed concern that his family’s privacy would be compromised if this application were granted.  He had written to the relevant architects regarding overlooking and they had suggested that the windows would be removed completely which is not the case in this proposal.  Dr Wiebe explained that they already experience overlooking from the Hotel.  He expressed further concern about the brick boundary wall which currently gives them some degree of privacy.  The application had stated that this would be knocked down.  It is a shared boundary wall and he had not been consulted.  He was concerned that this could damage his garden.  


Mrs Patricia Pitt, a local resident for the last 30 years, spoke against the application.  She considered that the new proposal would be more unsightly, offered less parking and no disability assessment had been undertaken.  She considered that the changes offered no benefit to the community, the developers were not residents of this City.  She considered that the Officer’s recommendation to grant this application were contrary to the Local Plan. 


During debate, Members raised concerns about the design of the proposal, the lack of ecological credentials of the proposal, the potential loss of an asset which they considered should have historical,  architectural value and should be a heritage asset. 


In response to local objection, the above concerns raised by residents and questions from Members, Officers explained:


·        That a number of concerns raised were not a planning consideration, such as whether the development benefitted the community.  The internal materials used. 

·        The property was not a listed building, there were no protection measures on this building and it could be demolished.  It would not harm the setting of the Listed Building. 

·        The previous application was refused due to the impact on the street scene, these concerns had been addressed in this plan. 

·        The location of the windows had been addressed and were now considered acceptable.


It was moved and seconded that the application be refused and it was therefore:


Resolved: That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:


The application is contrary to policy DP3 and D1 failing to respect the context of the site, harming the setting of adjacent listed building and

conservation area. Loss of existing building


Reason:     The existing bungalow on the site which is of period 1930s design and which references the Arts and Crafts style of nearby listed properties, has heritage value alone and as a group with other 1930s period properties in the Tadcaster Road Conservation Area, which it sits adjacent to. It is in an iconic location, forms part of the historic character of this part of  York, enhances the setting of this and the Central Historic Core Conservation Area which it also borders, and also the setting of the Grade II* listed Elmbank Hotel. The proposed replacement dwelling is not an appropriate design in this historic context. The proposed development is found to be contrary to paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 being inappropriate and poor design that fails to improve the character and quality of the area. The proposal is also contrary to emerging policy 'DP3 Sustainable Communities' in the City of York Local Plan Publication Draft February 2018 as it does not respect nor enhance the historic character of York. It also causes harm to the setting of both conservation areas and the setting of the Grade II* listed building. There are no public benefits to outweigh this harm and thus it is also contrary to Section 16, particularly paragraphs 194 and 196 in the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, which requires development to sustain and enhance the significance of designated heritage assets.


The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the existing dwelling could not be reused rather than demolished. Section 2, paragraph 8 (c) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 sets environmental objectives including protecting the built and historic environment, making effective use of land and minimising waste. Whilst the proposed design is bold, no environmental benefits of the replacement building have been proposed that outweigh the harm caused by not reusing the existing building or materials. As such, the proposed development is not considered to be sustainable development as set by the NPPF 2019 in the above paragraph.

Supporting documents:


Back to the top of the page