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

Plumbase, Waterloo House, Fawcett Street, York YO10 4AH [20/01521/FULM]

Erection of a 3 and 3.5 storey student accommodation block (providing 85 student rooms) following demolition of existing buildings. [Fishergate Ward]

Minutes:

Members considered a full application from KMRE Group (Church Fenton) Limited for the erection of a 3 and 3.5 storey student accommodation block (providing 85 student rooms) following demolition of existing buildings at Plumbase, Waterloo House, Fawcett Street, York YO10 4AH.

 

Officers provided an update noting that the scheme had 86 student rooms, not 85 as per the committee report. Details were given on updated conditions 11, 18 20, 21 and additional conditions related to servicing within the site and removal of a redundant crossing. It was noted that theadditional information had been assessed and the planning balance and recommendation were unchanged from the published report.

 

A presentation on the application was given, detailing the site location plan, existing buildings, the streetview of the existing builing and city walls, the proposed site plan, elevations, cycle and bin storage and sections.

 

In response to Member questions, officers confirmed that:

·        The site could provide 60 cycle spaces.

·        The policy was for archaeological findings to be recorded and excavated if necessary.

·        The widening of the footpath was where the building was.

·        And the backline from the terraced houses to Barbican Court had been secured to allow the option to widen the footpath.

·        There was two disabled parking spaces.

·        The site was considered a retail site not an employment site and therefore no consultation with the economic development team had taken place.

·        It was a shared access road and there were bollarded spaces which was where the disabled spaces would be located.

·        The student numbers were based on recent figures.

 

Public Speakers

Gary Swarbrick, Agent for the Applicant, spoke in support of the application. He explained that the applicant presented a multi million pound development and was a high quality development with 86 bed spaces. He noted that the site was within the historic core of the city and the applicant had worked with officers and other third parties to respond to their concerns and change the design. He added that the application promoted sustainable travel. In answer to Member questions he confirmed that:

·        The applicant would be happy to work with officers to maximise cycle parking.

·        He could not commit to changes to delivery times and would need to discuss this with his clients.

·        The plans for student arrivals.

·        There was kitchen facilities in each room.

·        It was known how many students could be in the communal areas.

 

[At 20:04 Cllr Waudby left the meeting as her internet was breaking up]

 

The intention was that the site would continue year round.

The shared facilities included a student work room and laundry.

 

Members then asked further questions of officers to which officers responded that:

·        Building regulations would be required for kitchen uses.

·        There was nothing in the plans to show that the amenity level was unacceptable.

·        Safety issues would be covered by building regulations. Fire regulations would be picked up as part of the building regulations application.

·        Changes to the extended hours for construction were in place until 13 May 2021.

·        The planning authority had 14 days to consider changes in writing.

·        Regarding condition 12 the applicant had not asked for BREAAM as it was a residential application.

·        The rooms were just over 30m² and a one bedroom flat should be 37m².

·        The demolition details could be added to the CEMP in condition 3.

 

[At 20:25 the Chair advised that Cllr Waudby had lost internet connection and had missed some of the discussion. Cllr Waudby then explained that because she had missed some discussion she didn’t feel that she could vote and she left the meeting at 20:26].

 

During debate Cllr Warters proposed refusal on the grounds of the loss of employment land, loss of amenity space, lack of air quality due to closed windows, construction traffic, student arrival/departure arrangements. Further debate followed and the Chair (Cllr Cullwick) moved deferral, seconded by Cllr Pavlovic. In accordance with the revised Standing Orders, a named vote was taken with the following result:

·        Cllrs D’Agorne, Daubeney, Douglas, Fenton, Fisher, Kilbane, Lomas, Myers, Pavlovic, Rowley, Warters and Cullick voted for the motion;

·        Cllr Barker and Hollyer voted against the motion.

 

The motion was carried and it was

 

Resolved: That the application be deferred.

 

Reasons:

                     i.        Lack of detail on the arrangements for students moving in and out of the apartments, concern about the size of the amenity space, concern about the impact of demolition and construction traffic on the amenity of neighbours (including the primary school), and the loss of employment land.

 

All Members confirmed they had heard all discussion.

Supporting documents:

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page