Agenda item

Erection of 3-storey student accommodation with associated landscaping [Guildhall Ward]

Cllr Pavlovic (Vice Chair), chaired the remainder of the meeting following the withdrawal of Cllr Cullwick (Chair). Cllr Waudby proposed Cllr Fenton as Vice Chair of the Committee. This was seconded by Cllr Fisher. Following a unanimous vote in favour, Cllr Fenton was appointed as Vice Chair for the remainder of the meeting.

 

Members considered a major full application from York St John University for the Erection of 3-storey student accommodation with associated landscaping at Peppermill Court, Ramsay Close, York. The Principle Development Management Officer outlined and gave a presentation on the application.

 

Public Speakers

Cllr Melly lived in the neighbourhood of the application site and spoke in objection to the application. She supported student accommodation on the site, but explained that the scheme needed to be well designed. She explained that residents felt that the scheme was overdevelopment and she added that it removed existing parking which would have further impacts on  car parking in the area. She explained that there were concerns about students moving in and out of the accommodation and the impact of noise on residential amenity. She distributed a photo showing the distance from the scheme to residential properties.

 

In answer to questions from Members, Cllr Melly explained that:

·        Where car parking was being displaced.

·        Some students and staff brought cars and there was a loss of parking on Ramsay Close.

·        There was little screening between the scheme and residential houses.

·        A number of residents had their living room on the first floor and this would be impacted by the scheme.

·        She was not aware of any respark.

·        The permit parking on Ramsay Close was managed by York St John University.

 

Cllr Fitzpatrick, Ward Member for Guildhall Ward, spoke on behalf of residents. She explained that residents were not against the principle of the accommodation, but they did not believe that enough weight had been given to the loss of amenity for residents. She suggested that the student social area would not be a quiet study area. She explained residents concerns regarding the 3m wall and she suggested an alternative layout. She noted that as Ward Councillor she wanted to work with the university.

 

In response to Member questions, Cllr Fitzpatrick noted that:

·        There was a fair amount of opposition to the application locally.

·        Regarding engagement from the university, Cllr Melly had organised a meeting with residents.

·        [With regard to permit parking, the Principal Development Management Officer demonstrated the R25 and R26 respark areas]

·        There was mixed parking in the area.

 

Nick Coakley (Director of Estates Management & Development at York St John University) spoke in support as the Applicant. He explained that the university was enjoying a sustained period of success and that it was expanding a number of services, including midwifery for which there needed to be accommodation close to the university. He advised that the university would be committing sums of money to subsidise rents, which would be 30-40% below the private market for rates. He added that there would be no displaced parking and there would be permit only car parking. He noted that there would be 24/7 staff presence on the site.

 

Philip Holmes (O’Neill Associates planning consultants and Tom Register (Ridge & Partners architects) were in attendance with Nick Coakley to answer Member questions regarding the application. They were asked and explained that:

·        Students moving in and out of the accommodation would be managed through pre booked arrival times over a number of days. This could be added to the management strategy in condition 18.

·        All parking would be managed by the university using a permit scheme. Most people that parked on the site were staff and student permits were based on disability and students such as paramedics and nurses who were on work placements and needed parking.

·        The mitigation in terms of a travel plan would be an adjustment of the thresholds for permits which may result in car sharing permits or using park and ride.

·        An explanation was given on how the layout was reached.

·        The accessible rooms were fully adaptable and vehicle use there was a relatively small number of students with disabilities. This arose following consultation with their student disability forum.

·        There was a staff team working with students and students with disabilities a room that met their needs.

·        The accessible rooms were considered as part of all accommodation on the estate.

·        The reasons for the scattered accessible rooms was explained.

·        Engagement with residents was explained and the university would like to continue to engage with residents.

·        There would be CCTV on the site and the screening around the scheme had been adjusted following residents views. The university had written to the landowner of the track of land to the north of the site and they intended to take over the management of the land.

·        The quiet social space had been mislabelled on the plan and it would be a quiet room which would close at 10pm.

·        The final form of the design had been reached by looking at buffer distances, massing limitations and a need to pull back from the east of the site due to the grade 2 listed St Mary’s house. The best design had been reached within the constraints of the site and balancing the needs for the university’s growth.

·        Regarding noise control, the university would start with education and working together with students and it was explained how this would operate in practice. It was noted that there was a security lodge on site.

·        There was a disciplinary process as part of the residency agreement.

·        The university would consider paying for a residents parking scheme.

·        Confirmation was given that the university would restart a termly liaison group meeting with residents in whatever format was considered to be most effective.

·        Regarding the maintenance of the buffer strip to the north of the site, the university had written to the registered owner and was ready to maintain the buffer strip when it has received permission to do so.

·        The location of the accessible rooms was explained. The location of those rooms was been limited because of the constraints around fire.

·        The number of students that declared they had a disability and had a blue badge was very small and their needs could be met. It was explained why the accessible rooms were spread across the development.

·        It was confirmed that rooms in block 6 could be rearranged to include accessible rooms.

[Cllr Fisher left the meeting at 21.02]

 

The rent for the rooms was 30-40% below market rates (the figure for which came from the average cost of rooms from their managed portfolio. It was not a commercial enterprise.

 

Members then asked further questions to officers. Officers clarified that:

·        The wording of condition 1 in relation to accessible rooms could be delegated to officers.

·        Condition 4 covered construction deliveries and a traffic management plan could be added to this.

·        Condition 17 could be amended to add drop off and pick up and a liaison plan between the university and residents.

 

Following debate, Cllr Lomas proposed the officer recommendation  to approve the application subject to amended conditions 1 in relation to accessible rooms to be delegated to officers, amended condition 4 to include a traffic management plan could be added to this and amended condition 17 to include drop off and pick up and a liaison plan between the university and residents and an additional condition to secure the location of the accessible rooms. Following a unanimous vote in favour it was:

 

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to amended conditions 1, 4 and 17 and an additional condition to secure the location of the accessible rooms.

 

Amended Condition 1

To be delegated to officers

 

Amended condition 4

To include a traffic management plan

 

Amended condition 17

To include drop off and pick up and a liaison plan between the university and residents

 

Additional condition

To secure the location of the accessible rooms.

 

Reason:

 

      i.        The proposed development is acceptable in principle and having regard to the duty under s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, there would be no harm on designated heritage assets; the setting of the Grade II listed St Mary’s student accommodation block to the east. 

 

    ii.        The NPPF requirement is therefore to grant planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when applying the policies within the NPPF taken as a whole. 

 

  iii.        The benefits of the scheme are re-use of a previously developed site, an improved streetscene along Ramsay Close (including rows of new street trees as advocated by the NPPF) and the provision of student accommodation for which there is need, in a building that is targeted to achieve BREEAM Excellent, in a highly sustainable location where trips to local amenities and services can be made without the need for private car travel.  Whilst trees are proposed to be removed (including 3 Category B trees) some 100 replacement trees are proposed and landscaped amenity spaces are proposed for the building’s future occupants.   

 

  iv.        The relationship of the proposed buildings to their neighbours are regarded to be acceptable, there are no conflicts with the NPPF requirements on the promotion of sustainable travel and no ecology, flood risk or other technical planning issues that cannot be addressed by imposing planning conditions.  Approval is recommended.