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 H Joseph Terry Grove York [18/01934/FULM]

Erection of four storey block of 34 apartments with associated parking and landscaping (revised design of Block K, previously named Block H) [Micklegate] [site visit]

 

 

Minutes:

Members considered a full application from David Wilson Homes

for the Erection of four storey block of 34 apartments with associated parking and landscaping (revised design of Block K, previously named Block H). 

                                      

The Development Manager updated the Committee on this application which had been deferred from the August 2019 Committee meeting.  Since August, further comments had been received from Sports and Active Leisure and Education.  The Education and Sports s106 contribution had had been agreed. It was reported that this would be pro-rata. 

 

The Development Manager circulated a further additional condition in relation to providing details of the reduction in carbon emissions this development would achieve through efficient building fabric and/or low carbon technology.  A Member requested that the condition state the extent that the applicant would be expected to reduce carbon emissions.  The Local Plan had stated 28% carbon reduction.

 

Mr Eammon Keogh, Agent for the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.  He stated that this application was on improvement on the previously agreed scheme as it represented a smaller footprint.  In response to questions from Members regarding parking allocation, he explained that there were 35 parking spaces, one for each apartment plus a further parking space for one visitor.

 

In response to Members concerns regarding take up of the provision of 5 social rented apartments in this scheme,  and whether or not these were occupied, Mr Keogh confirmed that these had been offered to the Housing Association, although he did not have any information regarding take up.  Members considered that there had not been take up due to excessive prohibitive service charges.  In response to further questions regarding what would happen if there were no take up from the Housing Association, Mr Keogh explained that a commuted sum would be payable to the Council.  Some Members considered the cost to be paid to the Council should be the market value of the property rather than the building cost which would be significantly less than the market value.

 

Mr Terry Wilson, Chair of the Chocolate Works Residents Association spoke against the application.  Mr Wilson raised a number of concerns including the following:

 

That the development:

 

(i)           Was becoming unbalanced due to subsequent planning applications.  Of the 365 total properties 56% of them were one or two bedroom(s) and 70% of these would be apartments.  He considered that these properties were inflexible.

(ii)         Impacted upon the heritage at the Terry’s site; these concerns had been raised by: the Chocolate Works Residents Association, the York Civic Trust as well as a local residents.

(iii)        Was the width of a football pitch, too large.

(iv)        Impacted on the out of date transport assessment undertaken in 2009 which was based on a lot less residents living in the area.

 

Ms Janet Ray, a local resident, spoke against the application and expressed similar concerns to Mr Terry Wilson (above), that the proposed buildings were too large for the site and were out of keeping with the heritage area, devaluing the original housing there and representing a marked divorce from the heritage houses.  Ms Ray also raised concerns regarding the offer of bikes for new residents which she considered to be intended to entice people to buy a house or flat.

 

Members discussed the fact that previous planning permission for this block had been granted in 2014 and that the new proposals under consideration represented a smaller footprint than the previous plan permitted.

 

In response to questions from Members regarding the social housing take up in relation to excessive prohibitive service charges and how to mitigating this problem, the Development Manager acknowledged that this was a concern and that there was uncertainty on how to mitigate this.  Members suggested that this may be something that the Housing and Community Safety Policy and Scrutiny Committee could consider.

UPDATE: This was referred to the Housing and Community Safety Policy and Scrutiny Committee and discussed at its meeting on 23 September.  The Committee agreed that the Scrutiny Officer, David McLean would undertake a feasibility report from which Members would decide how to proceed.  This decision will be reported back to this Committee in due course.

 

During debate, Members discussed a number of concerns,  including the fact that the scheme had changed considerably from the original scheme, that there was a lack of local open space and concerns about whether or not this was a sustainable development.

 

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

 

Resolved: That the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions listed in the report and the addition of the following condition:

         

Details of the reduction in carbon emissions the

development hereby approved would achieve when

compared against Part L of the Building Regulations

(the notional building) shall be submitted to and

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority

prior to the commencement of the construction of the

building and the development shall be carried out in

accordance with the approved details. 

 

The details shall demonstrate a reduction in carbon

emissions of at least 28% through the provision of

renewable or low carbon technologies or through

energy efficiency measures and at least a 19%

reduction in dwelling emission rate compared to the

Target Emission Rate (calculated using Standard

Assessment Procedure methodology as per Part L1A of

the Building Regulations).

 

Details shall also be submitted that demonstrate that

the development shall also achieve a water

consumption rate of no more than 110 litres per person

per day (calculated as per Part G of the Building

Regulations).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reason:     The application proposes a development of 34 apartments on previously developed land in a sustainable location.  The proposal provides for a mix of smaller apartments including affordable housing.  Previous planning permission exists for an apartment block on the site.  The scale and design of the scheme would not harm the character and appearance of the conservation area nor the setting of adjacent and nearby listed buildings.  The scale and design of the proposal would not harm the living conditions of existing residents.  Parking provision is provided to the standards set out in the DCLP and traffic generation, compared with the extant permission would be neutral.  It is considered that the proposal as amended complies with the statutory provisions in terms of heritage assets, and is in accordance with the NPPF, the Submission Draft Local Plan and the Development Control Local Plan.

 

In the interests of sustainable design and in accordance with policies CC1 and CC2 of the Publication Draft Local Plan 2018.

 

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page