8 apartments at 45 Hempland Lane, York

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing a bungalow and building two three-storey apartment buildings containing eight apartments, with parking, storage and landscaping.

“The application seeks consent for erection of 2no. residential apartment buildings (use class C3) with associated parking, refuse, cycle stores, and landscaping following demolition of an existing dwelling at No.45 Hempland Lane. The site is located within the Heworth ward of the city.”

“The development proposal would result in the formation of 8no. apartments spread across three storeys, within 2no. detached buildings. Access would be from Hempland Lane (as existing). The larger building (building 1) would be located to the southern portion of the site, measuring a total floor area of approximately 164 metres², to contain 4no. 2-bed apartments.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for two apartment buildings was refused because of scale, neighbour impacts and insufficient habitat information; the revised scheme reduced height and changed the layout.

“The previous application was refused on the grounds that the buildings would be of an incongruous scale, and form, taking into account the established suburban qualities of the area, their impact on neighbouring amenity, and the requirement for further information with regard to the development proposal's likely effect on adjacent habitats.”

“The revised scheme still includes the proposed development of 2no. apartment buildings, however the orientation and scale of development on-site have been altered, in which the height of the proposed buildings have been reduced, and site layout altered to set the main mass of the buildings further away from the adjacent boundaries.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, considering the revised apartments acceptable for housing, design, neighbouring amenity, highways, ecology, drainage and flood risk subject to conditions.

“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.”

“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.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Public bodies raised no objections or gave conditional responses, while highways, ecology and landscape matters led to concerns or requests for further information and conditions.

“No objections raised, subject to conditions in order to protect the local aquatic environment and public sewer network.”

“Application Reference Number: 25/01211/FUL Item No: 5a 3.16 Further information is therefore required to ensure the application does not deviate from law, policy and/or guidance, with regards to ecology. If further information cannot be provided the application cannot be supported.”

Officer report

What residents said

Objections concerned traffic, access, parking, privacy, light, noise, overdevelopment, trees, biodiversity, drainage and the possible use of apartments as holiday lets.

“Application Reference Number: 25/01211/FUL Item No: 5a - Light pollution - Management of waste - Overshadowing to adjacent dwellings and nature reserve - Increased noise pollution and disturbance - Overbearing and dominance - Scale and massing would detract from visual amenity of the area - Loss of mature trees and planting - Degradation to biodiversity and wildlife on/offsite - Increase in standing water and flooding/waterlogging - Density of development - Prospective use…”

“- Inappropriate scale and massing - Scheme still does not address the core reasons for the previous refusal - Scheme prioritises profit maximization rather than appropriate urban design - High-density apartments not in-keeping with suburban character of the area - Risk that the apartments could be used as short-term holiday lets - Loss of privacy and overlooking - Overbearing and oppressive presence - Shading and loss of outlook - Noise and light pollution - Dangerous access…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Three local residents and a ward councillor spoke against the application, while the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

The vote

The officer recommendation was proposed and seconded, then approved with six votes in favour and three against.

“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.”

Minutes