Agenda item

Erection of 8 dwellinghouses, following demolition of existing business premises. [Guildhall] [site visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr Joe Jackson for the erection of 8 dwelling houses, following demolition of existing business premises.

Officers provided Members with an oral update on the application and reported 4 further consultation responses which had been received but not previously reported to Members.  Officers confirmed that these further responses had raised no new substantive issues to those covered in the report. 

Tim Hatton, Agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application, raising the following points:

·        Location was a residential setting.  The business at this premises had taken the decision to move to a more suitable location due to the number of large lorries which frequently  passed.

·        The proposed plan had maximised the amenities and parking in a contemporary manner, in keeping with the area.

·        Secure storage and the capacity for electrical charge had been provided.

·        Construction was to a very high standard.

·        Daylight studies had ensured that the proposals exceeded best practice guidance. 

The following people spoke in objection to the application: a local resident who wished to remain anonymous, Mr Jethro Bagust, Mr Rob McNaught, Mr Matthew Dick and Cllr Fitzpatrick, Ward Member for Guildhall.  Their comments included the following:

·        Poor design in that it is a new property with windows that are only north facing.

·        Eaves height, unattractive design, scale and mass mean the scheme is too high and overbearing, inappropriate for the location.

·        The scale means it would cast a shadow on the court yard.

·        The dwellings are too big. 

·        Density, the four bedroom units has led to unsympathetic design and dwellings that are unsuitable for families.

·        The development gives the impression of being modern but does not add value or benefit to the community and is not in keeping with the area. 

·        Unrealistic sustainability measures.

·        Limited access to dwellings would be hazardous, particularly for children and the disabled.

·        Owner of a property adjacent to no 10 on east boundary considered that the proposal should protect privacy.  The area of the wall which would be cut out would allow plot 3 and 8 unobstructed views of their ground floor living room and garden.  The proposed balcony would create a situation of overlooking into their garden and would compromise their privacy in an overly dense area.  That resident in particular, would prefer that there be no area cut out of the wall.

·        More casing windows without light.

·        Herbert Street would have people outside their windows trying to access properties.

·        A considerable number of properties surrounding this area are rented.  These residents would also like to object these proposals but have felt unable to arising from concerns that it could jeopardise their tenancy. 

·        It is not a gated development but the wall creates an artificial separation.

·        Contradicts the National Planning Policy Framework guidance in regards to day light, almost no light in plot 1 and 3 and just above the minimum in other units.

·        Matthew Dick, spoke on behalf of residents at 21, 22, 24 and 25 Granville Terrace and raised concern that the ridge height would be too high and would take the elevation well above that existing.  This would impact upon on my garden a view of a monolithic wall.  The residents represented would be flanked by this wall impacting on their view. 

·        Regarding the garden decks, the glass at the end of balcony would allow overlooking into the garden at number 21.

During debate of this item Members discussed all of the concerns that had been raised by the registered speakers.  In addition to this Members raised the following concerns:

·        On the brick boundary wall at the side of Arthur Street the proposals were to replace the historic brick walls.  Members sought assurance that there would be a condition that the wall would be replaced with historic or comparable brickwork to retain the character and standard of the wall should the proposal be confirmed.

·        Members noted that there were 27 bedrooms and 27 bathrooms which they considered could indicate that the intention was for the dwellings to be for multiple occupancy use rather than for families.

·        Members raised concerns regarding the ground floor bedrooms, outside of which there was a store, bin storage and parking places.  Members considered that this compromised the ventilation for bedrooms.

·        Officers confirmed that the width of vehicle entrance was meeting the required standards for emergency vehicles.

·        Regarding the pedestrian access tunnel from Lansdowne Terrace Members considered that the poor lighting had posed a security risk and that that enclosed space could attract anti-social behaviour. 

It was moved and seconded that the application be Deferred, this motion was lost.

It was moved and seconded that the application be Refused.

Resolved: That the application be Refused.

Reasons:  

(i)           The site is constrained by its proximity to neighbouring properties.  The position and orientation of plot 1, its proposed increase in height over and above the existing buildings on the site, would have an overbearing and domineering impact to the rear of properties at Granville Terrace (notably No's 21-25) harming the residential amenity of the occupiers of those properties contrary to paragraph 127 (f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and policy D1 of the City of York Council Publication Draft Local Plan (2018).

(ii)         The amount of development is considered to be too great for this constrained site and has resulted in a form of development that does not respect local form and character. The proposed dwellings 1 and 2, positioned along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to Lansdowne Terrace are designed with a link over the vehicular access. By virtue of its scale and height, the large expanse of brick and termination at the end of the street, the design of the proposed buildings when viewed from Lansdowne Terrace are considered to be unsympathetic to the character and appearance of the area contrary to draft policy D1 (Placemaking) of the City of York Council Publication Draft Local Plan (2018) and paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

(iii)        The application does not provide an objective assessment demonstrating that the loss of land/buildings that are currently in employment use are no longer viable in terms of market attractiveness and appropriate for employment uses contrary to the City of York Council Publication Draft Local Plan (2018) policy EC2 Loss of Employment Land and paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which supports economic growth and productivity.

(iv)        The amount of development is considered to be too great for this constrained site and has resulted in a form of development that is compromised in terms of residential amenity and would not provide a high standard of amenity for future users. The proposed dwellings have been designed with bedrooms at ground floor level, adjacent to the car parking areas, and with a cantilevered canopy projecting over the car parking. This arrangement is considered to have a detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of future occupiers using the ground floor bedrooms, by virtue of outlook, daylight and sunlight and air circulation contrary to draft policies D1 (Placemaking) and ENV2 (Managing Environmental Quality) of the City of York Council Publication Draft Local Plan (2018) and paragraph 127 (f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).