Item 8

Report of the Planning and Development Manager

Proposal :

Full Planning Permission for Demolition of Existing Vacant Richmond

House Care Home and Construction of 12 No. Houses and 8 No.
Apartments

Location :

Richmond House
Reeth Road
Richmond
North Yorkshire
DL10 4EF

Ward :

Richmond West

Applicant :

Mulberry Homes Yorkshire

Agent (where applicable) :

Date Application Received :

17 March 2014

P+HS Architects

1.0

Purpose of the Report

1.1

To update Members on discussions that took place with the applicants/agents and
consultees following the special Committee Site Visit which took place on the
afternoon of Wednesday 14 May and to seek comments from the Committee to
further inform the amended proposals that are in preparation. Subject to
submission of revised proposals and re-consultation taking place with interested
parties, a further report will be brought to Members at the July meeting of the
Committee.

2.0

Background

2.1

Members considered this proposal at the last meeting along with comments that
had been received from consultees prior to that meeting. Copies of the submitted
layout plan and elevations are provided at Appendix 1 to this report for reference
purposes. Whilst supporting the principle of redevelopment, Members resolved that
consideration of the application should be deferred for a special site visit to take
place with the developers and all other interested parties, followed up by an
informal meeting between the developer, officers, Chair, Vice-Chair and Ward
Members before giving further consideration to the proposals.

2.2

Along with other general matters, four main issues were considered and explored at
the site visit and in the subsequent discussions :
a) the access arrangements;
b) the design and massing of the group of buildings facing towards the Temple
Grounds;
c) the relationship with the existing dwelling at 9 Cravengate to the east of the site;
and,

d) the relationship with the existing dwelling at 2 Jubilee Park to the west of the
site.
3.0

Informal Consideration of Main Issues

3.1

With the benefit of having been to the site and also having viewed the proposed
development from adjoining land and properties, the subsequent informal
discussions with interested parties led to the following preliminary conclusions :

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

Access Arrangements
Whilst the proposed mini-roundabout is likely to provide a more workable access
than the existing arrangements in some respects, the Highway Authority are not
currently satisfied that such a junction would operate safely in practice overall given
the physical constraints of the space available and the need to ensure that road
users have adequate visibility and warning signs along the approaches to the
junction. However, the Transport Consultants acting for the applicants believe that
these matters can be fully and properly addressed and they have undertaken to
provide the Highway Authority with additional information and revised details.
The Highway Authority will require the proposed new junction arrangements to pass
the initial stages of an independent Road Safety Audit in order to be satisfied that
the proposed design will not have inherent safety issues in practice. If revised
proposals can demonstrate that the proposed access and associated works/signs
can be safely constructed/provided, then the Highway Authority would be prepared
to withdraw their current recommendation of refusal to allow planning permission to
be granted. Nevertheless, this would still require further safety audits to be carried
out on behalf of the developers once the new access was in operation in order to
further refine the scheme and iron out any minor problems in practice.
Relationship of the Development to Temple Grounds
Whilst noting the support that had been given by the Yorkshire and Humber Design
Review Panel to an urban terrace approach for the dwellings on plots 2 to 8, the
general consensus was that this group of buildings ought to be more varied in its
massing and design style. Initial sketch outlines were tabled by the architects which
illustrated an alternative more varied design approach that could be worked up and
submitted for further consideration. Such an approach was generally supported by
those taking part in the informal discussions. I would hope to have some
illustrations of the alternative design available to present to Members at the meeting
for any further comments.
Relationship of the Development to Existing Neighbouring Properties
Having examined the proposals from, and in relation to, the neighbouring properties
to the east and west, the general consensus was that there would be merit in
amending the design of the proposed dwelling on plot 1 to incorporate a lean-to
garage on its eastern side which would then move the bulk of the new building
further away from the neighbouring property at 9 Cravengate. Revised proposals
will be submitted to illustrate this.
Careful consideration was also given to the relationship with the neighbouring
property to the west at 2 Jubilee Park and in particular to whether the proposed
dwelling on plot 11 would be overbearing in relation to the neighbouring house and
garden. The general consensus was, however, that this part of the development
was not unacceptable as proposed and that amendments would not be necessary.
2

4.0

Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1

The site visit by Members and subsequent discussions with interested parties have
been very useful in exploring the main design issues which were of concern in
relation to the submitted proposals. A positive and constructive approach by all
concerned enabled potential solutions to be identified which the
applicants/architects are now taking forward with a view to formal submission of
amended plans that will then be the subject of re-consultation with those parties
prior to the revised application being considered by Members at a future meeting.

4.2

To assist with that process, I would ask the Committee to endorse the preliminary
conclusions reached following the discussions with interested parties as set out in
paragraphs 3.2 to 3.6 above and in doing so to identify any other matters which
may have arisen from the recent site visit that Members would like to see
addressed by revised proposals.

4.3

With the benefit of any further input from Members to inform the design process, I
will be recommending that the application be deferred again for a further report to a
future meeting that will enable the Committee to consider and determine revised
proposals following re-consultation with interested parties.

Contact Officer:

Peter Featherstone Ext. 01748 901121

List of Background Papers:

Application forms, plans, covering letter, certificates.
Other material submitted with the application.
Further correspondence with the applicant/agent.
Details of consultation and neighbour notification.
Consultation replies.
Other representations received.
Previous planning history.
File Reference:

14/00208/FULL

Appendices:
Appendix 1 : Proposed site plan (as originally submitted)
Proposed elevations (as originally submitted)
Planning Committee : 3 June 2014.

#



$








y w




&

'

R
H

Q
I

&

%


'







H
F




"


T


e




g
t




e
z

h
~


p




x


u
s

'

&

&

s
x

x


E
a


q

X
c
s

I





U


b
g

h

h

X
c

&

g
f

'

h
q
p

i
r


o


Y
D


p

u

v

"

i
g




"

2









"
%





























!


"

&

&




%


&

)
6
`


A


G

A
&
(

&
3

&
&

4
#

(
2

2
9
(

!
3

#
'


)
3

(
@

(
8

(
"

)
R

B
3
%

!
3

"

A
E

"

w
"

G
v

H
&

&
$
V

)
"
I

9
(
!
v
4
@

1
(

)
H

#
$

5
I

w
$

3
"
3

A
5
(
1

&
#
w

x
%
&
3


#
&

4
I

!


x
b
(
3

!
3

U
I

"

1
R

'

A
0
3

(
"

&
"
B

R
P

'

#
"

"

!
#
3

0
&

)
(
R

'


I

#
3

"
R
x

c
(
3
I
#


4
I

(
w

"

)
4

!
5

4
&

3
R

0
&

4
&

7
(

"

1
(

(
B


(
4

5
8
H

3


1
y

3
(

'
9


(

D
#

)
!


&
D

9
7

&
v

@
(

"

v
)


)

4
E
I

!
"

g
B

3
#
3

&

#
y

#
)
A
y

&

&

5
)
3
7

(
w

3
S
3

3
5

B
"
3

&

1
(

0
#

(
)
(

#
)
!

5
9

&
6

3
#


!
%
%
"

)
!

3
"

4
0
#

&

3
#

4
!

9
&
3

0
3
#
w

#
2
F

1
4

#
p

)
x

D
0
1
"

(
1

6
#

)
!

!
3

8
#


#

$
#

&
)

1
p

3
)

3
#

3
9
I

5
u

&
$

'
6

#
B

"
@

#
3
G
8
5
I

1


(

&


p

"

#
"

w
9
&
(


#

&

2
6

$
(
$

(
w

5
%


&

!
9
&

!
5

#
V

@
(
3

@
#

!
)

)
)

1
2

"
(
4

5
&


3
(

u
H
(
"


(

3
7
c

1
)
4


T
4
!

!
1
G

)
c

(
"

(
5

@
u
c

5

(

&

3
)

(
5
)

(

3

h
0

$
&

Y
#
5

)
H

!
"
3
(
5

0
#

&

5
6

$
#

$
(
$
H


4

!
#
"
5

3
'
5

@
3
3

h
0
l

e

y

!
&

F
z

o
(
#
g

&
h

&
"

&

s
2

(
)
g

Q
(

3

i

(
4

9
(
i

3
m

&
#

m
g

v
l
)
d

1
1

(
e

e
)
i
i

f
j

&

g
5
&

h
m

i
i
{

!
l

3
#

!
p

&
)

e
0
f

APPENDIX 1

k
g
g

&
5
"

i
i

&

0
(

i
m
d

m
e
d

k
l
k

e
l

n
l
H

3
$

&

d
4
p

&

m
p

)
5

"

n


d
k
q
i

g
g

i
i

g
g

@
1
3


#
3

$
3

(
$
5

!
2

#
#

3
(
)
1
(

R
5

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 1