Agenda item

Erection of 2no. residential apartment buildings (use class C3) with associated parking, refuse, cycle stores, and landscaping following demolition of existing dwelling [Heworth Ward]

Members considered a full application from Swan Properties Ltd for the erection of 2 residential apartment buildings (use class C3) with associated parking, refuse, cycle stores, and landscaping following demolition of existing dwelling at 45 Hempland Lane York YO31 1AT.

The Head of Planning and Development outlined the plans for the application. She gave an update on the application noting that further representations and highways information had been received. She added that there were two amendments to the report at paragraph 5.27 relating to formatting and 5.49 referring to 10, not 6 trees.

Public Speakers

Antonia Gane, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. She explained her concerns regarding highway and pedestrian safety due to speeding and the narrowness of Hempland Lane, increased vehicle trips and limited parking. She noted that there was no road markings for bus stop and added her concern for the safety of children travelling to Hempland School. She was asked and explained that 420 pupils attended Hempland School and many passed the drive to the site.

Kevin Holland, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application on behalf of 21 residents. He suggested that there was a number of omissions to the report. He noted concerns about highway safety and noise and light impact on biodiversity. He suggested that there was misleading information in the report on scale and massing, adding that the development was out of character for the area and was overbearing and dominant. He was asked and explained concerns regarding highway, the width of the access point and that there was no path to building 2. He noted a number of omissions and errors in the report. The Chair clarified the swept path analysis. Kevin Holland was asked about his concerns on the impact on woodland and he explained the impact of light from the buildings on protected species.

John Bonarius, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. He noted that it was an overdevelopment of a biodiverse area. He added that there would be increased noise and vehicle movements, impact of light on neighbouring properties. He noted the development would cause traffic issues on Hempland Lane through increased parking and access and egress issues.

Cllr Ayre (Heworth Without Ward Cllr), spoke in objection to the application. He agreed with the comments from Cllr Webb as detailed in the committee update. He noted that Hempland Lane was a key route and noted his concerns that the site was not acceptable due to highways issues. He noted the development’s negative impact on wildlife.

[The meeting adjourned from 5.08pm until 5.12pm]

In response to questions from Members, Cllr Ayre explained:

The highways issues on Hempland Lane and safety concerns, and he believed that 5 or 6 homes would have been more suitable.

The highways objection to the quantum of development on the site.

There was a significant portion of children attending Hempland School passing the site when travelling to school and local amenities. He noted that there was a number of local nurseries.

Regarding the development impacting parking, there was already on street parking from Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs), there was no extra space for onsite parking and there was also concerns about traffic spends on Hempland Lane.

Janet O’Neill (Agent for the Applicant) spoke in support of the application. She explained that it was a modest development for first time buyers and that sort of accommodation was needed. She noted that government policy was the efficient use of land and that York was a densely developed city surrounded by green belt. She added that it was a windfall site. Regarding highways concerns she noted the swept path analysis. She was asked and explained that:

She was not concerned about the proximity of the building to woodland.

Regarding concerns about the blind bend, drivers needed to drive with care.

She didn’t know where the proposed site to address biodiversity net gain would be located and it would be fixed for 30 years.

The applicant did not have land in the local area that could be used to address biodiversity net gain.

The applicant’s highways consultant was satisfied with the width of access.

Regarding waste disposal there was a number of private waste disposal contractors in York.

Members then asked officers questions to which the responded that:

The first planning approval was for three buildings which had reduced to two buildings.

The landscape architect’s comments had been noted.

The rooms had been measures in the scale plans and they exceeded minimum space standards

The previous application on the site was not refused for highways reasons.

Changing the bus stop position could not be conditioned.

The swept path analysis was the resubmitted one.

Highways looked at the highway design guide which was not currently in place. Planning looked at the NPPF and local planning policy and on balance found the application acceptable.

It was explained what the committee could do in terms of the NPPF framework. The Senior Lawyer noted that the NPPF was detailed at paragraph 5.25 of the published report. This was read out by the Head of Planning and Development Services.

Regarding the entrance of the site, a plan of the previous application was shown on the screen in the room. It was explained that the size of the pavement had increased, which wasn’t in the previous application.

The width of the access was 5.5m in the withdrawn guidance. The widths of the access was 4.6m at the nearest point, it swpt round to 5m and 4.5m at the pinch point and then to 4.9mIt was explained that what constituted as unacceptable harm was made on an application by application basis. The Senior Lawyer explained that should the committee refuse an application they must have sustainable, robust and defensible reasons for the refusal.

Concerning planning consideration of the development being on a travel for children going to school, this was set out at paragraph 5.25 of the report, which referred to paragraph 117 of the NPPF.

Regarding Condition 6, there was inherent building regulations that had to be met. If the regulations could not be met the developer would need to write to planning officers.

The 10% biodiversity net gain would be enforced if it could not be met.

The ridge heights were based on the scale plans.

How the separation distances were calculated was explained and it was noted that all windows in the neighbouring properties did not exceed 25 degrees.

During debate the Chair read out paragraph 73 of the NPPF. Cllr Baxter proposed the officer recommendation to approve the application. Thhis was seconded by Cllr Whitcroft. Following a vote with six voting in favour, and three against it was;

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Reasons:

                     i.        The proposal seeks consent for the demolition of an existing residential bungalow and the erection of 2no. new buildings to provide 8no. flats at No.45 Hempland Lane, Heworth.

                    ii.        The application site lies within a suburban area of the city, in a sustainable and accessible location and in a predominantly residential area. The apartments would contribute to the city’s housing stock, and, on balance, it is considered that they would do so without undue harm to the character and appearance, visual amenity, highway safety, residential amenity of existing and future occupiers, natural environment or flood risk, subject to the imposed conditions. In light of the above, It is considered it complies with national planning guidance, as contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and the City of York Local Plan 2018. Approval is therefore recommended.

[The meeting adjourned from 6.23pm until 6.35pm, during which time Cllr Baxter left the meeting].