Agenda item

PERMISSION GRANTED SUBJECT TO PLANNING CONDITIONS AND DIRECTOR ASSURANCE AGREEMENT WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITION CONCERNING OBSCURE GLAZING

Description of application – Erection of new part 2, part 3 storey terraced maisonettes, and 4 storey apartment building, accommodating 35 new dwellings, with associated substation, hard and soft landscaping, and car parking.

The Planning Officer gave a brief presentation and overview of the application.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from a neighbour who in response to a question from Members confirmed that they lived at number 6 Crofton Road.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent who gave the following responses to Member questions:-

• It was likely to prove impractical to do major scale earth works as there were already retaining structures around the edges of the site. As such, digging out may not be practical or provide an acceptable environment for some of the ground floor homes.

• The agents had been working with a team of civil engineers to evaluate the retaining structures on the site.  One of the things that had been identified was that the brick facing on York Rise was not actually the structural part of the wall but was an aesthetic facing with a heavy-weight concrete structure behind it.

• The existing access was steep and sloping and the agents were working with the Council’s Highways Team to develop a scheme to make the gradient more shallow.

• The issue of biodiversity was complicated to unravel, although the proposed development had a high Urban Green Score.

• Alternative site layouts had been considered early in the project and with the current arrangement the bulk of the new homes were within the terrace.  A layout was tested with them at the back of the site, but they then had a proximity to the gardens of Yeovil Close.  With the current proposed layout, the bulk was away from all surrounding properties.  In the most balanced way possible, efforts had been made to maximise the distance with the surrounding properties.

• Details of the maturity of the 40 trees to be planted would be worked out by conditions. However, the mature oak tree on the site would be retained and overall the quality of trees on the site would improve.

• The road would be adopted and policed by Borough Parking Enforcement.  This would be a car-free development. However, in the event that a resident required a car, a small payment to MyTime could be made for a space in their car park.

In opening the discussion, Committee Member and Ward Member Councillor Joel acknowledged the need to provide accommodation for homeless families in the Borough with York Rise listed in the Local Plan to provide around 35 residential units.  During the preliminary consultation with Officers, Ward Councillors had expressed the opinion that the 4-storey bock of flats should be reduced to 3 storeys, reducing the number of units to 31.  Ward Councillors still considered that the block of flats was too high. Councillor Joel further expressed the opinion that issues regarding drainage, flooding and archaeology could have been clarified earlier and not left as a condition with planning consent. Councillor Joel also questioned the need to remove 20 trees and provide 40 new trees, highlighting the need to protect the wildlife on the land.  Car parking would also be a potential problem as there was only limited parking available in the surrounding roads and during the working week the available space was used by commuters.  Councillor Joel expressed the view that the proposals before the committee did not complement the area.  Consequently, Councillor Joel moved to defer consideration of the application in order to reduce the height of the 4-storey block, review the mass and design of the building, and provide more information on elements of the scheme.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Samaris Huntington-Thresher who expressed concerns around the bulk of the building.

Councillor Fawthrop moved refusal for reasons of biodiversity and impact on local residents, noting that the design of the site should be further reviewed.

Councillor Dean expressed the view that the scheme was acceptable and was well designed and thought out. The scheme would also make a valuable contribution to the Borough’s housing supply and the units would be 100% affordable.  Consequently, Councillor Dean proposed that permission be granted in line with Officer recommendations.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Harris.

In response to a question from Councillor Terry, the Planning Officer explained that in the view of Officers, it was considered that there was no direct overlooking, and the impact was not adverse enough to justify refusal as there were options for additional screening if necessary.

The Committee requested that an additional condition be added requiring obscure glazing to mitigate the impact of any potential overlooking.

Councillor Allen expressed the view that it was a well thought out design which made good use of the land.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO PLANNING CONDITIONS AND DIRECTOR ASSURANCE AGREEMENT as recommended and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Assistant Director, Planning.

It was further RESOLVED that a condition be added requiring obscure glazing.