Agenda item

This application seeks permission for the erection of 8no. 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellinghouses, together with associated parking and landscaping following the demolition of the existing business premises (resubmission) [Guildhall]

Members considered a full application from Mr Joe Jackson for the erection of 8no. 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellinghouses, together with associated parking and landscaping following the demolition of the existing business premises.  The application was a resubmission of a previous scheme which was refused by the sub-committee in January 2020.

Officers gave a presentation based upon the slides at pages 45 - 60 of the Agenda and reported:

(i)           An additional representation had been received from a neighbouring resident at 21C Granville Terrace who reiterated their objection to the proposed development citing the elevated height and additional storey (3 storeys) would  negatively impact on natural light and privacy and would be out of character with the existing properties and that the application also posed a security risk from the elevated gardens and the reduction to the height of the back wall. No new substantive issues are raised.

Additionally the objector highlighted that the applicant had submitted a number of inaccuracies in relation to their property.  The planning report also makes inaccuracies including the property being positioned 3m from the boundary wall rather than 3.8m as detailed in the report and that the three rear first floor bedrooms are unobscured and serve lounge/kitchen areas.

Officers were satisfied that the change in the dimension, its internal layout and lack of obscurely glazed windows in the rear elevation of this property had not materially changed the relationship of this property with the application site and it is maintained that there would be a neutral impact to this dwelling as outlined in paragraph 5.40 of the officer report.  Officers considered that this information had not impacted upon the overall planning balance and the recommendation for approval was unchanged from the published report.

(ii)         The addition of an informative to condition 1 and the addition of a new informative no.5, if Members were minded to grant planning permission.

Cllr Fitzpatrick, Ward Member for Guildhall, spoke in objection, on behalf of local residents, on the grounds of the inappropriateness of the scheme in that it was overbearing and out of keeping with the surrounding streets, especially at the end of Lansdowne Terrace.  She considered that the committee’s concerns regarding the loss of the employment use had not been addressed.

Mr Alex Molyneux, neighbouring resident, spoke in objection, on the grounds that there appeared to be a lack of concern from traffic management about the effects on parking and accessibility by inserting many houses with cars into the WLD space with one exit down Lansdown Terrace, which would prevent parking outside the properties at the end of Lansdown Terrace. He suggested that another exit from the development would have been much better.

Mr Matthew Dick, owner of 25 Granville Terrace and representing the concerns of his neighbours on Granville Terrace at no. 21 A, B and C , no 22 and no 24 spoke in objection stating that very little had been done to address the original concerns of residents and the committee, which led to the previous plans being rejected.  The extreme height and massing of the development remains unacceptable to residents and at odds with the surrounding area.

Mr Rob McNaught, neighbouring resident, spoke in objection, on the grounds that the quality of amenity for prospective residents remained poor and that concerns around light and the outlook for ground floor bedrooms had not been addressed. 

Mr C Ball, neighbouring resident,spoke in objection, on the grounds that the excessive height and inappropriate design would  affect all sides. Sun diagrams show many houses to the north and north-west on Emily Mews would be overshadowed and lose light. These diagrams were not provided on the previous application.

The proposed height would result in a development that is overbearing and negatively impacts on neighbouring properties,  contrary to NPPF para 127 and local plan policy D1.

Mr Tim Hatton, of Carve Architecture, the architects for this application, outlined a number of significant amendments that had been made to address the concerns raised in relation to the previous scheme.   He considered that the proposal would support housing needs in York, and that development would be crucial in boosting the economy and supporting the construction industries.

After debate, Cllr Crawshaw moved, and Cllr Craghill seconded, that the application be refused, overturning the officer recommendation on the grounds that the concerns given as reasons for refusal at the previous discussion of this item at this sub-committee in January 2020 had not been addressed.  Cllrs: Craghill, Crawshaw, Cullwick, Fisher, Melly, Orrell, Perrett,  Waudby and Webb all voted in favour of this motion.  Cllrs: Galvin and Hollyer voted against this motion and the motion was declared carried, 9:2.  It was therefore:

Resolved:            That the application be REFUSED.

(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).

[There was a short break from 6.36pm until 6.45pm, in order to register the public speakers].