Agenda item

Variation of conditions of permitted application 15/00524/OUTM to alter green infrastructure, increase building heights, updates to detailed configuration of proposed Main Street access road, alterations to the drainage strategy and updates to approved illustrative phasing plan [Acomb Ward]

Members considered a major full application from Gregory Properties Ltd for the variation of conditions of permitted application 15/00524/OUTM to alter green infrastructure, increase building heights, updates to detailed configuration of proposed Main Street access road, alterations to the drainage strategy and updates to approved illustrative phasing plan at British Sugar Corporation Ltd, Plantation Drive, York. The Chair clarified that the application was for a variation and he drew attention to paragraph 1.4 of the published report.

The Principal Officer Development Management detailed the plans for the application, in particular the phasing plans and building heights. He noted the scheme amendments. At a Member’s request he demonstrated the location of the drain. In response to questions from the committee, officers explained:

·        The difference between the 2.5 and 3 storeys.

·        That the swale was an open drain, which was of higher ecological value than a closed drain. It was confirmed that the swale was for water run-off.

·        The number of rooms and viability would come through the reserved matters application. There was a tool to look at viability as part of the S106 agreement.

·        This application would broadly set parameters and it fixed building heights not housing types.

The Principal Officer Development Management then gave an update noting updates to conditions 2, 3 and 11, the deletion of condition 20 and an additional informative regarding highway design to include LTN 1/20 compliance. A Member asked how the application would help reduce carbon emissions. The Chair explained that the committee was limited in it’s decision making as this was an application for a variation. In response to a comment regarding the railway halt he noted that informative 8 referred to the railway halt.

Neil Jones, Planning Consultant, spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant. He welcomed the officer report and explained that the application sought approval for minor amendments to the existing permission. He noted the updates to the illustrative phasing plan, parameter plans, ground levels, and added that the green infrastructure had increased. He added that the increased building heights were away from the residential areas and that British Sugar were committed to the sustainable development of the site. He noted that there were no objections or material objections to justify refusal of the application. In response to Member questions he explained that:

·        British Sugar was the sole land owner

·        Concerning getting alternative providers for drainage, a number of private regulated operators had been appointed. The costs for this would be met through service charges.

·        The rationale for the increase from 2.5 to 3 storeys was related to green infrastructure

Members then asked officers further questions to which officers clarified that:

·        Regarding the Council not adopting the drainage was due to issues around maintenance, the applicant was the landowner and developer would find a solution. The Chair noted that there was mitigation in place for service charges for affordable housing.

·        The specifics around the Council not adopting the drainage was because of the specifics around the complexities of managing an open drain and swales. There had been a fundamental change in drainage was there was not enough space in the masterplan to maintain the swales, which would need specialist equipment, and it would not be an efficient use of council resources to purchase and maintain the specialist equipment. Members were advised that there may be two separate service charges for open space and drainage.

·        The principles of the drainage strategy of the site were the same as in the previous application. However, the drainage with this application now took up more space and the allowance for climate change was now higher than when the last application came forward.

Following  debate, Cllr Merrett proposed the officer recommendation to approve the application including updates to conditions 2, 3 and 11, the deletion of condition 20 and an additional informative regarding highway design to include LTN 1/20 compliance. This was seconded by Cllr Waudby. Following a unanimous vote in favour, it was: 

Resolved: That delegated authority be given to the  Head of Planning and Development Services to APPROVE the application subject to -

1.    The completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the following planning obligations:

                                     i.        Affordable housing – £711,772.78 towards off-site affordable housing.

                                    ii.        Open space - £14,647 - used to improve the amenity open space within the nearby Hull Road Park and/or St Nicholas Fields Nature Reserve.

2.    The Head of Planning and Development Services be given delegated authority to finalise the terms and details of the Section 106 Agreement and the planning conditions.

3.    Updates to conditions 2, 3 and 11 and the deletion of condition 20 as detailed in the additional information.

4.    An additional informative regarding highway design to include LTN 1/20 compliance

Reasons:

1.   Officers are satisfied that the previous reasons for refusal have been addressed.  The NPPF states that so that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.  This means granting planning permission unless:

                                     i.        the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or

                                    ii.        any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

2.   On balance, regarding the weight to be given towards housing provision (which includes student accommodation) in the NPPF the loss of employment land in this case, given the site specifics, is not sufficient grounds to refuse the application.  Further information has been provided, which relates to the Council’s own evidence base; there is justification for the loss of employment land concerned.  The economic objective in the NPPF is to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; this objective is not compromised as a consequence of this scheme.

The disabled car parking provision is appropriate, and the layout has been revised compared to the previous scheme; there is an additional lift, further communal space across the scheme (on each floor) and a reasonable number of accessible rooms.  The social objectives of the NPPF are reasonably met in this respect.  Other materials considerations and technical matters have reasonably been addressed.