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

Vacant Site, Eboracum Way, York [19/01467/FULM]

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

Minutes:

Members considered a major full application from Tiger Developments Limited, for the erection of a five storey apartment building with basement, comprising 62 residential units (use class C3) with associated car parking and landscaping works.  The application had been previously considered at this committee and deferred for further information.

 

Officers reported that there were no further updates to the information set out in their report.

 

Cllr Craghill, Ward Member for Guildhall was spoke with comments in support of the s106 agreement to secure obligations in relation to: affordable housing, car club, off-site sport, open space amenity and children’s play.  She did not understand the reasons behind not securing contributions in relation to education.  She considered that the building had an over-bearing impact to the amenity of  houses at Layerthorpe and suggested that any reduction to the height and massing of the proposed building would be an improvement.

 

The Agent for the applicant, Mr Rupert Litherland spoke in support of the application explaining how they had worked closely with Planning and Conservation officers to make amendments to their proposal which had enabled them to submit a good scheme.

 

Officers confirmed that the previous request for a planning condition as part of the landscaping scheme regarding the lighting on the site would be added.

 

It was moved and seconded that delegated authority be given to the Assistant Director of Planning and Public Protection to Approve the application with the conditions and s106 agreement obligations as set out in the officer report, with an additional condition in relation to the lighting on the site and it was therefore:

 

Resolved:  That delegated authority be given to the Assistant Director of Planning and Public Protection to APPROVE the application subject to:

 

(i)           the conditions set out in the officer report;

 

(ii)         the addition of a suitably worded condition with regard to lighting at the site;

(iii)        completion of a s106 agreement to secure the obligations set out in the officer report in relation to: affordable housing, car club, off-site sport, open space amenity and children’s play.

 

Reasons:

 

(i)           At the January planning committee members requested further information in terms of the provision of open space, early years education and the amended condition to require approval of where contractors and construction vehicles would park during the construction period.

(ii)         Officers have identified where off site sports facilities, children’s play and amenity space could be enhanced at local sites. 

(iii)        Relevant councillors have been consulted on the provisions identified – Guildhall Ward Councillors and the Executive Member for Culture, Leisure and Communities.  Councillors agreed that Monk Bridge is an area local residents wish to see open space enhanced.  With regards children’s play the use of s106 money at Park Grove School and St Nick’s fields were suggested.  In response to this officers have confirmed that it would be appropriate to enhance publically accessible space at the school.  St Nick’s however is too far away (over 480 m) to be considered. 

(iv)        No contribution towards early years is sought.  Although there is demand for places in the Guildhall Ward, the contribution involved would be minor, even in terms of resourcing project management and procurement work, for example, required in conjunction with releasing fees to any private developers for early years expansion projects.  A contribution would not be regulation compliant; officers could not at this time identify a deliverable project in the locality, with the contribution involved, and as it would not lead to any tangible benefit for the development.  As such it would fail the tests of being necessary to make the development acceptable and would not be directly related.

Supporting documents:

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page