Agenda item

Erection of 3 no. dwellings (Use Class C3) with associated access and landscaping following demolition of garage. [Fishergate Ward]

Members considered a full application for the erection of 3no. dwellings with associated access and landscaping following demolition of a garage.

[Members were given time at the start of this item to read the written submissions from five residents who had requested to speak at the meeting.]

The Head of Planning and Development gave a presentation on the plans for the development and the Planning Officer provided an update to the report and noted amendments to the report at paragraphs 2.5 and 5.37 and amendments to conditions 3 and15.  An informative in relation to the process for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) was also added.  The officer also clarified the plans and confirmed that the houses were two storeys and noted a further objection from a neighbour had been received.

In response to questions on the plans, officers confirmed the location of the proposed development and that they considered that the housing had planned sufficient outside space.  It was proposed not to allow residents to have access to resident parking permit due to the development’s sustainable location.  The size and use of the garages outside the redline plans was explained and the location of obscured glazing was clarified.  The plans for cycle storage were also explained.  Change of use at the property was granted in 2022 and the plans for the Theatre Royal arches were clarified.  The biodiversity value had been assessed to be acceptable by the CYC ecologist.  In relation to concerns from Highways, planning officers had considered all of the evidence before coming to a judgement.

Public Speakers

Helen Cozens, a resident, spoke in objection to the application.  She raised concerns relating to the scale of the development, describing it as overbearing, leading to a loss of sunlight.  She also stated that the development would be seen visible from the conservation area.  Finally, she highlighted vehicle access and questioned the parking provision.

Christopher Rainger, a resident, spoke in objection in the application.  He expressed surprise at the officer recommendation and went on to highlight the scale and style of the houses, which he described as out of keeping for the suburban area.  He was concerned that the houses would overlook neighbouring properties and concerned about the provision for parking.

Paul McGrath, a resident, also spoke in objection to the application noting the many resident objections, stating that parking and access issues would be increased, and emergency service vehicles would face access difficulties.  He questioned the planning process and stated that the development would not impact on the lack of social housing.

Graeme Holbeck, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.He noted the officer’s clear advice on separation differences and confirmed that it had informed the revised scheme. He highlighted that the redundant car park was an underused brownfield site in an urban area in a sustainable location and the planning officer has found no harm in the development of the site. He noted the difficulties of the site shape and explained that the developer had offered to restore footpath to make it useable. The design was now policy compliant and will assist the city in meeting its housing targets.

In response to Member questions the agent confirmed that the pallet of materials matched those used in the local area and the buildings were designed to be similar to the surrounding terraced housing.  The existing garages had a right of easement in order to access the garages, but the land was owned by the applicant and a management plan would be put in place to ensure that there was parking was not allowed in front of the garages.  Developers had reconfigured house three, moving it further away from the boundary meaning it was not necessary to reduce the size of the property. He also clarified the size of the garden for house two.

[5.58 – 6.08 pm, the meeting was adjourned for a comfort break]

In response to questions to officers, it was reported that:

·       Highways were satisfied with the garage sizes, garage two met the requirements for cycle storage.

·       The development is on private land and was therefore not subject to highways control.  The only parking on the development is provided by the garages, one space per house has been agreed due to the sustainable location.  The changes made to the proposal mean that highways are now satisfied that vehicles can get in and out satisfactorily.

·       There was a condition to ensure that the garages are used solely for parking.

·       Vehicle tracking information has been provided and vehicles can drive in and out in forward gear.

·       The resident parking zone in which the development sits is oversubscribed, it was therefore not desirable to make this development eligible for resident parking.  The impact outside resident parking zone hours was likely to be minimal due to the number of houses involved.

·       The biodiversity net gain condition could not be secured for 30 years as they are private gardens, the landscaping condition cannot reasonably be conditioned for longer than 10 years.  There was a six-week gap in place from plan submission to allow sufficient time for implementation.

·       The landscaping was in private gardens and therefore 10 years was considered reasonable.  The biodiversity net gain requirements had been met through the informative. 

·       The SPD guidance provided for separation distances between houses of 18m and gardens of 7m, there was one location where the distance was 16m and 6.7m.

·       The development was situated North of the development and had been moved back by 7m from the boundary, a sunlight survey was therefore not considered necessary.

·       Building regulations would cover the appropriate method of ventilation.

Following debate, Cllr Vassie moved the officer recommendation, and this was seconded by Cllr Baxter. Members voted four in favour and three against the motion with one abstention, and it was therefore:

Resolved:             That the application be approved, subject to the conditions in the report, the amendments contained in the update.  The wording of condition 17 to be revised by the Head of Planning and Development to ensure that the biodiversity plan was implemented prior to first occupation.

Reason:               The proposal is for the erection of three two-storey four-bedroom dwellings on the former Priory Hotel car park, at the rear of No.128 Fulford Road in Fishergate. The site is in a very sustainable location, involves the redevelopment of a redundant brownfield site, in an established residential neighbourhood. The final scheme is considered to be of good, appropriate design for its context with no significant harm to neighbour amenity, with suitable access and parking provision for vehicles and bicycles. As such the proposals are found to be in accordance with relevant sections of the NPPF 2024 including 2, 5, 9, 11 and 12 and draft policies DP2, DP3, D1, D2, CC2, ENV3, ENV4 and T1 in the Publication Draft Local Plan 2018 as modified 2023.

[The meeting adjourned 6:54 pm to 7:02pm, during which Cllr Waudby left the meeting].