Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings, alterations to 'The Married Quarters Building', and erection of new buildings to provide no.85 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), 457sqm of commercial / business floorspace (Use Class E) and 152sqm of community floorspace (Use Class F1/F2) with associated ancillary development [Fishergate Ward]

Members considered a major full application from City Of York Council for the demolition of existing buildings, alterations to 'The Married Quarters Building', and erection of new buildings to provide 85 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), 457sqm of commercial/business floorspace (Use Class E) and 152sqm of community floorspace (Use Class F1/F2) with associated ancillary development at Development Site Hospital Fields Road and Ordnance Lane, York.

 

The Development Management Officer gave an update on the application advising Members of comments from one of the registered speakers received by email on 9 June 2022 and of updates to Condition 3 (affordable housing) and Condition 23 (landscape). Concerning the registered speaker’s concerns regarding the blocking of sunlight over Ambrose Street, Members were informed that the Applicant had undertaken an assessment based on BRE guidelines concluded that the building would have no effect on the rear of Ambrose Street. Therefore the conclusions in the report remained, that the impact on neighbour’s amenity was acceptable and not grounds for refusal. Following the committee update, the Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application.

 

Public Speakers

Christopher Ranger spoke in objection to the application on behalf of Fishergate, Fulford and Heslington Local History Society. He explained that York had a long military history and he feared that the determination may set a precedent in demolishing historical properties. He suggested that it would be more sustainable to retain the buildings. At the request of a Member, Officers demonstrated the buildings to be demolished and Mr Rainger was asked and explained the heritage value of those buildings.

 

Michael Wills spoke in objection to the application on behalf of Fishergate Planning Panel. He explained that the panel could not support the lack of car parking spaces on the site, noting the impact of this on neighbouring streets. He added that there were no EV charging points and asked where the cars would park.

 

Andrew Knights, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application noting that he was one of 23 people who had raised an objection based on the loss of light. He explained that his house extension on Ambrose Street was not shown on the plans and that the planning documents did not show how high the new building would be.

 

Andy Shrimpton spoke in support of the application noting that the best quality buildings on the site were being retained and retrofitted. He noted that the buildings being demolished would provide 18 passivhaus homes. In response to questions from Members he noted that regarding car parking, the residents on the site would be car free and that there would be car parking provision as part of the respark scheme.

 

Rob Ainsley spoke in support of the application on behalf of York Cycle Campaign noting that the campaign was excited that it was a car free development. He added the provision of cycle parking would establish York as a great place to live without a car.

 

Cllr D’Agorne, Fishergate Ward Councillor, spoke in support of the application. He welcomed the application as an exemplar of a carbon free development with local amenities within walking distance. He noted that it was a green development that allowed for a new pedestrian/cycle street and he added that the mitigations for parking had been made. In response to Member questions noted that:

·        Car parking was a pressure from the growth in car ownership by students in the area, and resident and commuter parking.

·        The respark scheme would address the parking concerns of Fishergate Planning Panel.

Michael Jones (City of York Council Housing Delivery team representative) spoke in support of the application on behalf of the Applicant, City of York Council. He advised that the application formed part of the housing delivery programme and that there had been several years of close collaboration between local residents and businesses. He explained the layout of the neighbourhood noting that the application proposed 40% affordable which if approved would lead to an application for a grant to take affordable housing to 60%. In answer to questions raised by Members he and colleagues explained that:

·        The EV charging policy was developed in line with CYC policy and the EV charging points would benefit residents in the development and local area.

·        The play spaces were outlined and it was confirmed that the areas with play equipment would be timber based play.

·        Regarding the maintenance of play equipment, the majority of public spaces were to be adopted.

·        The access to the deck was controlled to residents of those blocks only.

·        The gangway next to the married quarter would be a lightweight steel structure and there would be cycle storage under the walkway.

·        The light assessment was carried out using BRE guidance and a third party light consultant was used and found that the light was within BRE guidance.

·        Regarding the concerns raised by the resident in Ambrose Street, the Development Management Officer clarified that the single storey doors on the extension did not back onto the proposed development. It was noted that a further BRE assessment had concluded that the development was within BRE guidance. He was asked and clarified the BRE guidance and that the survey was done on the entire garden.

·        The aspiration for the site was to be car free and there were cargo bikes to hire for free as well as cycle parking. There was some car parking on the site and the car parking provision was based on council policy.

·        The car parking permit scheme was explained and it was clarified that the detail of the car parking strategy and respark were yet to be confirmed.

·        The carbon cost of the demolition was complex and the houses proposed for demolition were of poor quality internally.

·        If retained, the arts and crafts house would be have impact on the scheme. This option had been considered and because of its location retaining it would reduce the number of homes by 12 and it would not be possible to get an east west route through the site.

·        Officers were working with the building services team on the plan for the maintenance of the ventilation system.

·        It was not known how the socially rented properties would stay in the social housing sector.

·        The number of cycle parking spaces was above the number required by CYC policy.

·        Regarding soakaway it was confirmed that there needed to be a 60% reduction in soakaway.

·        It was confirmed that the exclusions around properties being able to apply for parking permits was not related to tenure.

 

[The meeting adjourned from 6.00pm to 6.05pm].

 

Following the meeting adjournment, the Chair confirmed that there was 280 cycle spaces on the site.

 

In response to Member questions, Officers clarified that:

·        What schools pupils from the development attended was dependent on the school catchment areas.

·        Concerning parking concerns, the Frederick House student accommodation development and this development brought different parking problems. It was explained how car usage and demand were calculated and how parking could be managed by residents parking schemes.

·        The funding of parking permits for residents could be for up to 5 years.

 

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application. This was seconded by Cllr Baker. The Head of Planning and Development Services clarified that it would not be reasonable to provide car parking for the development in a CYC car park. On being put to the vote, 9 Members voted against the motion and there was one abstention. Therefore the motion fell.

 

Cllr Ayre moved approval of the application with updated conditions 3 and 23 and Condition 24 amended to include residents’ permits to be proportionate, the working of this to be agreed by Officers, Chair and Vice Chair. This was seconded by Cllr Widdowson. Members voted 6 in favour of the motion, two against and two abstentions and it was therefore:

 

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report, updated conditions 3 and 23 below and Condition 24 amended to include residents permits to be proportionate, the working of which to be agreed by Officers in conjunction with the Chair and Vice Chair:

 

Updated Condition 3: affordable housing (point 3) – add “where relevant” to the requirement, as some of the affordable housing will be shared ownership.

 

Updated Condition 23: landscape – delete reference to urbed drawings (which have been superseded).

 

 

Reason:

 

i.        The social and environmental objectives of the NPPF are as follows –

 

a)   social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and

 

b)   environmental objective – to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, improving biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.

 

ii.        The scheme meets these objectives.  It proposes residential lead development within a setting designed to encourage recreation and social interaction, taking into consideration the public realm and the community uses proposed within the buildings.  40% of the homes will be affordable.  In respect of health and moving to a low carbon economy the proposed homes will exceed optional national space standards and target Passivhaus standards that latter significantly exceeds local or national energy efficiency requirements.  There will biodiversity net gain on-site and a significant increase in the number of trees on-site.  These benefits weigh strongly in favour of the scheme and justify the demolition proposed. 

 

iii.        The NPPF requires, as set out in paragraph 11d, this development should be approved unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies the Framework taken as a whole.  

 

iv.        The adverse effects identified are the demolition of existing buildings and potential effects on surrounding streets in respect of car parking.  The demolition is justified due to housing need the environmental quality of the proposed homes and a reasonable scheme of mitigation has been identified to manage on street car parking.  There are no adverse effects which justify refusal of the scheme. 

 

v.        Conditions will secure provision of the following items, which would normally be secured through a planning obligation, because the council is the landowner.

 

·        Affordable housing

·        Education

·        Open space and sports provision

·        Residents parking – funding for Traffic Regulation Orders for residents parking at this site and towards establishment at residents parking on streets to the north

 

[Cllr Baker left the meeting at 6.35pm]

 

[The meeting adjourned from 6.35pm to 6.40pm]