Agenda item

Erection of 3, 4, and 5 storey student accommodation building with associated car parking following demolition of existing buildings [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered a major full application from The Hire Group and Gregory Projects Limited for the Erection of 3, 4, and 5 storey student accommodation building with associated car parking following demolition of existing buildings at Enterprise Rent-a-car, 15 Foss Islands Road, York.

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application. The Development Management Officers gave an update, advising Members of revised plans for the third floor with the addition of a common room. This was a revision to Condition 2 (Plans). Members were advised that the additional revised plan had been assessed and the planning balance, with the exception of the requested alterations to Condition 2, the recommendation was unchanged from the published report. A Member requested and was shown the communal areas in the plans. Officers were asked and confirmed that the waste access was from the first floor on Elvington Terrace.

Public Speakers

Graham Connell, spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant. He clarified that in addition to the open plan communal space on the ground floor, there was also a gym, staff room and entertainment room. He explained why the location was suitable for student accommodation and the changes made to the application following refusal in 2021.

In response to Member questions, Mr Connell and the architect for the scheme explained:

There was two disabled parking spaces and further disabled spaces available along Foss Islands Road. The expectation was that the number of disabled spaces would not be required by residents and the spaces would be controlled for the use of residents only.

There was one lift and for the number of units this was more than adequate for the number of rooms and storeys. If the lift broke down there were emergency repair arrangements and there would be routine maintenance out of hours during which the lift may be out of action for a short period of time.

There was a programme set up to allocate times for student drop off/pick up. This would fit into a weekend. There would be a management plan for this and it would be managed accordingly.

The overlooking windows in the corner of the courtyard were perpendicular.

The rationale for the layout was explained. The layout enabled more incidental interactions on the ground floor and the applicant had spoken with operators who had said that the scheme worked best.

Members then asked questions to officers to which they responded that:

Because of the specifics of the case it was unreasonable to ask for a contribution to affordable housing. The affordable housing contribution (policy H7 of the draft Local Plan) came through the Local Plan hearings.

The proposed wording for policy H7 of the draft Local Plan reflected the proposed modifications and this included the commuted sum for student accommodation.

The size of the units was comparable with student flats allowed elsewhere.

[The Chair noted the size of the units at the Plumbase student accommodation planning application.]

Regarding the land not being marketed for employment use for 18 months, this was part of the draft Local Plan modifications. The applicant had given reasons regarding the quality of the land and the buildings being in a poor state of care, making the land commercially unviable to bring into use. There was a balance of industrial use next to residential buildings.

There was a requirement for a contribution to community space and regarding sports space, the universities provided sports provision.

Concerning highways considerations regarding drop offs, it was standard do to the management of a drop off in half an hour. The feedback was that this worked. The reason for the layout of the drop off space was explained . It was noted that there were other means of getting there and officers were comfortable with the numbers and management plan conditions.

Because the accommodation was car free, the number of disabled car parking spaces was based on the number of spaces available. On balance, the number of disabled car parking spaces was acceptable and the application could not be refused on highways grounds.

[The Chair had sought detail from officers and reported the distances to the offsite blue badge car parking spaces].

There was two blue badge car parking spaces with electric vehicle charging and one car parking space to the south of the service substation.

An explanation was given regarding why an environmental impact assessment was not needed.

The room sizes were not included in the draft Local Plan.

The weight given to room sizes was explained.

[The Chair explained the Plumbase student accommodation application refusal reason. The Head of Planning and Development Services explained the timeline of the Local Plan modifications].

Regarding student private car ownership, many of the adjacent streets were protected by respark and the tenancy agreement stated that students should not be the registered keeper of a car. It was noted that planning enforcement may be involved in enforcement measures.

[The meeting adjourned from 18:55 to 19:00]

There was a standard Yorkshire Water informative.

Residents had waste collection on Elvington Terrace.

Access to the cycle parking and refuse store was explained.

Members debated the application at length. Following debate, Cllr Fenton proposed the officer recommendation to approve the application. As there was no seconder the motion fell.

Cllr Steward moved refusal of the application on the grounds of drop off space, room size, scale of development and accessibility and loss of employment land.  This was seconded by Cllr Baxter. The Chair read out the reasons for the Plumbase student accommodation application refusal. A Member noted that the two applications were not comparable. Following a vote with ten Members in favour of refusal and one against, it was:

Resolved: That the application be refused with the final wording on the reasons for refusal delegated to the Head of Planning and Development Services in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair.

Reasons:

                     i.        The application does not create safe space for students because of inadequate room size, lack of blue badge spaces, lack of space in the development for circulation, location and number of lifts and a lack of communal spaces on each floor.

                    ii.        There is insufficient information provided regarding the loss of employment land and the marketing of the site for alternative uses.