Agenda item

Erection of 5 storey apartment building with basement comprising 62 residential units (Use Class C3), associated car parking and landscaping works [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application from Tiger Developments Limited for the erection of a 5 storey apartment building with basement comprising 62 residential units (Use Class C3), associated car parking and landscaping works at the vacant site, Eboracum Way, York, YO31 7RE.

An officer update was given under which the address of the application was clarified and Members were informed that revised plans had been issued to clarify the variable scale of the building on the opposite side of Layerthorpe. There was also an extra condition concerning the restricted use of flat roof areas, an amendment to the condition 10 (and informative), and to conditions 11 and 12. The additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and the recommendation was unchanged from the published report. 

Following the update, Officers were asked and confirmed:

·        The application was policy compliant in terms of sustainable construction.

·        That a request had been made to officers in terms of the open space associated with the application.

·        The distances between the buildings and neighbouring properties.

·        The reasons for affordable housing being on the ground floor.

·        That the street lighting for 119 and 121 Layerthorpe was not within the applicant’s control.

·        That the lighting on site could be conditioned as part of the landscaping scheme.

·        The fifth floor component was set within the footprint of the building.

·        How the scheme would fit in with surrounding buildings.

·        That regarding early years provision, officers were content that there was capacity within existing places in early years settings.

·        The amount of car parking was based on location and connectivity.

·        The daylight and sunlight assessments were undertaken via the impact on windows and not gardens. It was explained why these assessments came out as acceptable.

·        There were national space elements for building densities if there was an adopted Local Plan. As there was no Local Plan, officers were content that the floorplan was of a reasonable size.

Margaret Binnington, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application on the basis of the height and size of the development, and that it was out of place in the local area. She referred to the council home delivery plan and asked why there was not more social housing and less private development in order to support the local community.

In response to Member questions, Ms Binnington explained that:

·        She had not been consulted on the application.

·        Concerning the access and egress of construction traffic she questioned where the builders would park and where construction equipment would be stored.

Rupert Litherland, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He explained that consultation on the scheme finished on 17 July and there had been three letters in objection and three in support. He explained that the buildings met national housing standards and 20% affordable housing, and promoted sustainable travel through the 66 cycle spaces and 45 car parking spaces. He added that the building used sustainable technology and that the lighting was compliant with national standards.

Members asked Mr Litherland a number of questions to which he clarified:

·        The ownership of roads adjoining the site, one of which was under the ownership of the gas board. Officers clarified the public right of way adjacent to the site.

·        Construction traffic would be conditioned by a CEMP.

·        The 2m drop on the boundary to the site was a boundary treatment.

·        Regarding car parking it was originally hoped that the site would be car free

·        The applicant had written to the residents at 119 and 121 Layerthorpe.

·        It was not known whether the viability of a development without a fifth floor had been considered.

Councillor Craghill, Ward Member, spoke on the application. She commented that it was good to see a development on a neglected site. However, she had major concerns about the height and massing of the development. She welcomed the affordable housing and asked that if minded to approve the application that the committee seek specific requirements for contractor parking during the construction phase, that clarity was sought on the ownership of the lane at the side of the site, and that the provision of open space be delegated to Chair and officers.

Further questions were then raised by Members. Officers confirmed that:

·        The committee could delegate officers to negotiate the S106 agreement.

·        Highways could ask for the detail of contractor parking.

·        Lighting could be conditioned.

Deferral of the application was moved and seconded on the basis of further detail being required in order to consider the application fully:

Construction management

An amendment to the proposed condition was requested to require approval of where contractors would park.

Education

Further justification and clarification was required with regards early years provision.

Open space

Officers were asked to identify projects where planning obligations could be used towards sport and open space.  It was requested that ward members were consulted.

It was then:

Resolved: That the application be deferred until further detail had been provided on the details of construction management, early years provision, and open space provision.

Reason:     In order to determine the application fully.