Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site for purpose-built student accommodation with up to 319 bedrooms, associated communal facilities, car parking and landscaping [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered a major full application from S Harrison Developments Ltd for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site for purpose-built student accommodation with up to 319 bedrooms, associated communal facilities, car parking and landscaping at Alton Cars York Ltd 3 James Street York YO10 3WW. 

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application.  The Case Officer then delivered an update to members covering the number of bedrooms in the clusters of student accommodation, the Travel Planning Assistance figure and the change to the site management condition, number 23. He also provided the updated comments from Highway Network Management.

Public Speakers

A Member spoke in objection to the application.  He highlighted that he was waiting for an Officer response regarding the number of HMOs that had come back to market in his ward area since the development of student letting accommodation.  He raised concerns regarding the overdevelopment of student rooms in the area and stated that there were 2,922 rooms within a 400m radius of the application.  He expressed concerns that the units were not well-designed or integrated and highlighted a need for affordable accommodation in the city for all residents of the city, not just students.

In response to questions from Members, he noted the NPPF guidance required a well-functioning design that added to the long term quality of the area.

Gavin Douglas, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He highlighted the relocation of the existing business on the site to more suitable commercial premises.  He noted that the company was an experienced developer and operator of student accommodation within the city and in Leeds.  He stated that the location was convenient to both Universities which provided sustainable accessibility.  

In response to questions from Members, the applicant gave the following answers:

·        There were 16 accessible rooms in the plans. 

·        A cycle space per resident was an overprovision at the expense of other facilities. The travel plan allowed for the monitoring of cycle provision.  There were 8 accessible cycle parking bays within the courtyard.  Improving cycling routes had been discussed with highways officers but there was not a problem at the specific location.

·        The social spaces were in the plans due to student demand and fostered shared experiences.

·        The landscaping had been designed to reflect the location of the site which was close to the conservation area. 

·        The parking issues were expected to resolve following the relocation of the business.

·        The study bedrooms were 12.5m² and the studios were between 20 and 28m².

·        Condition 4 covered the Construction Management Plan.

·        The expansion of York University is not only for students but also for research facilities.

In response to questions from Members, the Officers answered as follows:

·        There were not any size standards for student bedrooms.

·        Developments such as this one had regeneration benefits to the area and are therefore viewed positively by the council.

·        It was accepted that the universities currently provide sports provision.  It was possible to request a financial contribution for community space or play areas.

·        To obtain meaningful data, a whole street investigation of the cycle infrastructure was needed.

Following debate, Cllr Warters moved to refuse the application and this was seconded by Cllr Doughty.  The exact wording of the reasons for refusal was delegated to the Head of Planning and Development in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair and is shown below.  Members voted 8 in favour of the motion and 6 against.  It was therefore:

Resolved: That the application be REFUSED.

Reasons:

i.        The proposals due to the amount of development proposed, and its scale, height and layout, would be over-development of the site which would have an undue adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. As such the proposals are in conflict with NPPF paragraph 130 and policy D1: Placemaking of the Publication Draft Local Plan 2018.

ii.        The proposed development would provide an inadequate level of amenity for its future residents due to the inadequate amount of floorspace within the proposed student bedrooms and the inadequacy of the proposed layouts. As such the proposals are in conflict with NPPF paragraph 130, the National Design Guide in respect of homes and buildings and policy D1: Placemaking of the Publication Draft Local Plan 2018.

iii.        The proposed development, by virtue of its amount, scale and footprint would overdevelop the site. The consequent building would be over-bearing and over-dominant, and unduly imposing on its setting. It would provide an inadequate amount of public realm and soft landscaping to enable it to assimilate into its setting. As such the proposals are in conflict with NPPF paragraph 130, the National Design Guide in respect of identity and public spaces and policy D1: Placemaking of the Publication Draft Local Plan 2018.