Agenda item

Frederick House, Fulford Road, York YO10 4EG [19/00603/FULM]

Erection of 6 purpose-built 4 storey student accommodation buildings (providing 368 bedrooms), associated change of use of and alterations to existing 'Guard House' building to multi-amenity use associated with the accommodation, construction of energy/plant facility, car and cycle parking, refuse/recycling storage and landscaping (re-submission of withdrawn application 18/02797/FULM) [Fishergate Ward]

Minutes:

Members considered a major full application from Summix FHY Developments Ltd for the erection of  six purpose-built 4 storey student accommodation buildings (providing 368 bedrooms), associated change of use of and alterations to the existing 'Guard House' building to a multi-amenity use associated with the accommodation, construction of energy/plant facility, car and cycle parking, refuse/recycling storage and landscaping (re-submission of withdrawn application 18/02797/FULM) at Frederick House Fulford Road, York.

 

An officer update was given under which Members were updated on the objections have been received from local residents following re-consultation. There had also been a consultation response from Highways, who confirmed that that the scheme has been further reviewed and drawings revised to increased cycle parking. The Highways letter also stated that the applicant had agreed to detailed design of the improvements to the pedestrian refuge on Fulford Road and the extension of the shared use path to the existing pelican crossing north of Kilburn road to be incorporated into the planning conditions and/or S106 requirements. Members were also advised of an additional condition relating to a parking survey. It was noted that the additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and the recommendation are unchanged from the published report. 

 

In response to Member questions, officers explained that:

·        The success of the design would be in the details and quality of the construction and landscaping.

·        The height of the buildings in relation to neighbouring buildings, including those on Kilburn Road.

·        The shared pedestrian footpath had been extended to the north of the site.

·        The applicant had offered a sample bus pass to students for free when they arrived.

·        The transport team had retracted their objection to the cycle parking.

·        The 2018 travel survey results did not give an indication of student car ownership.

·        The applicant had used arael photography to determine to level of parking on side streets.

·        There was some provision for off street parking on side streets and this needed to be considered with developers.

·        The highways department had retracted their objection.

 

Bryn Bircher, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. He explained where he lived and explained that the buildings were too big and too close to residential buildings, blocking their light. He noted that the proposed building was higher than the current building and was much closer to the boundary. He requested that the application be deferred.

 

Angela Johnson, Chair of the Low Moor Allotments Association and a local resident, spoke in objection to the application in regard to the effect on the allotments. She thanked the applicant for taking the cycle lane away from the allotments. She expressed concern about the gate at the Walmgate Stray end of the cycle lane. She noted that the allotment plot holders had not received notification of the application and added that all stakeholders affected should have been consulted. In response to Member questions she confirmed that it would be useful to discuss the gate and additional barriers for accessibility with the applicant.

 

Stuart Black, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He confirmed that the allotment had been written to and as there had been no reply, that there may have been problems with email. He noted that the applicant would be happy to work with them. He explained the layout of the accommodation that was for first, second and third year students, who were generally good neighbours. The accommodation was also built in a sustainable location that would be well run.

 

In answer to Member questions, Mr Black clarified that:

·       The scheme would be operated as car free in principle and the tenancy agreement would stipulate that students could not bring cars onto the property.

·       The provision of bus passes could be reviewed after a year and the provision of a bus passes would be passed on through rent.

·       The provision of a bus pass could not be made to perpetuity as the applicant did not have all of the information needed in order to do this.

·       The height of the buildings were within the remit for the application.

·       The current travel survey was taken as a benchmark and the applicant would be happy to work with officers on the frequency of the survey.

·       There would be an on-site manager that would be the liaison point with local residents and any problems could be checked by looking at CCTV.

 

Barry Rankin, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He outlined the height of the buildings in detail noting the scale and height of the buildings were considered acceptable. He noted that the applicant considered the building to be one of the most sustainable student site facilities in York.

 

Members asked Mr Rankin a number of questions to which he gave clarification on:

·        The external lighting on the buildings

·        The height of the buildings, which at 1.5m over the height range was considered to be acceptable.

 

Then, in response to further questions, officers clarified that:

·        There was an increase in height but the gaps between the buildings had been broken up.

·        It was possible to have parking zones on unadopted highways.

·        The gaps in the buildings were acceptable within the NPPF.

 

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to a Section 106 agreement, conditions listed in the report and following additional condition:

 

Additional condition

Parking survey. Wording as follows:

 

No development (other than demolition) shall take place until the developer has carried out a survey of on street parking on highways with an area previously agreed with the local planning authority and thereafter to repeat the survey annually. The surveys shall be carried out to a specification and at a time agreed with the local planning authority.

 

Within three months of the annual survey being carried out, the developer will review the on street parking survey results and submit the review to the local planning authority to demonstrate whether the volume of on street parking in any of the areas shown on the plan has increased by more than 20% of the first annual survey as a consequence of the development.

 

Reason: To monitor on-street parking levels as result of the development and to determine if as a result of the development, further previously agreed measures are required to be undertaken by developer to restrict on street parking in this areas.

 

 

Reasons:

 

                     i.        Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states that where there are no relevant development plan policies planning permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. In this case, there are no restrictive NPPF policies that give a clear reason for refusing the proposals and the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle with justification for the student housing provided. It is also noted that the provision 368 student housing beds is positive with regard to the national and local policy requirements for new housing. A condition is recommended that the site be restricted to student housing, otherwise affordable housing contributions would be required. With regard to the loss of employment at the site it is noted there is a permitted development fall back to convert the existing building to a residential use. Furthermore it is noted that the existing building due to its scale and age is unlikely to be attractive to potential commercial operators.

 

                    ii.        The revised design of the site is considered to be an improvement to both the original submitted scheme in 2018 and also the initial resubmission in 2019. It is noted that there is relatively limited public view of the site and that some of the design constraints of the site such as the ‘dead end’ nature and the lack of access to the south and east are outside of the applicant’s control to remedy. The landscaping scheme is considered acceptable and the TPO’d trees on site can be retained. Conditions are proposed with regard materials, landscaping and tree protection.

 

                  iii.        The proposed development, including the erection of new buildings, the alterations to the Guard House and the retention of the protected trees are considered to preserve the character of the Fulford Road conservation area.

 

                  iv.        The proposed development is also considered to be acceptable with regards to ecology, noise, light, privacy, contaminated land and also archaeology subject to recommended conditions.

 

                   v.        It is recognised that there are concerns with regard to parking and highway safety that include an objection from the Highways Officer and also from local residents. This is primarily due to the distance of the site from the University of York, particularly during inclement weather or poor light which will reduce the appeal of travelling via Walmgate Stray to the university. The resultant concerns are that this will lead to increased use of Kilburn Road both by cyclists and also for on street parking. The applicant has proposed measures to restrict private car usage including subject to a legal agreement covering car ownership in student tenancies, parking surveys and if deemed contributions towards permit parking for residents of nearby streets.

 

                  vi.        In the planning balance it is considered that the identified benefits of the site, including the re-use of brownfield land for residential use and the sustainable transport measures proposed. Significant weight should be given to the acceptable design and the positive landscaping scheme in favour of granting planning permission, as should the sustainable design and construction measures. Limited weight should also be attached to the proposed ecological enhancements. While the objection from Highways is acknowledged and this should carry appropriate weight in the decision making process, moderate weight should also be attached to previous appeal decisions that have indicated that the principle of using planning conditions or obligations to control student parking via tenancy agreements is acceptable.  Overall, the proposal is considered to comply with Paragraph 11 of the NPPF in that the adverse impacts do not significantly or demonstrably outweigh the identified benefits.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page