Agenda and minutes

At this point in the meeting, Members are asked to declare:

·        any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests

·        any prejudicial interests or

·        any disclosable pecuniary interests

which they may have in respect of business on this agenda.

At this point in the meeting, Members were asked to declare any personal, prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests they may have in the business on the agenda.

Councillor Barton declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 4b (North Selby Mine) as he had publically stated his opposition to the application to residents in his ward. He withdrew from the meeting during the consideration of this item.

Councillor D’Agorne declared a personal interest in agenda item 4a (Germany Beck Site) as a number of speakers from Fulford Parish Council were known personally to him. He also declared a personal interest in respect of both items as a member of York Environment Forum.

Councillor McIlveen declared a personal non prejudicial interest as a member of Yorkshire Wildlife Trust who were consulted on both applications.

Councillor Williams declared a personal non prejudicial interest in agenda item 4a (Germany Beck Site) as an employee of Yorkshire Water who had been consulted on the application.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 21^st March 2013.

RESOLVED:       That the minutes of the last Planning Committee held on 21 March 2013 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

It is at this point in the meeting that members of the public who have registered their wish to speak can do so. The deadline for registering is Wednesday 24^th April 2013 5pm. Members of the public can speak on specific planning applications or on other agenda items or matters within the remit of the committee.

To register please contact the Democracy Officer for the meeting, on the details at the foot of this agenda.

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Members considered a report of the Assistant Director (City Development and Sustainability) relating to the following planning applications, which outlined the proposals and relevant planning considerations and set out the views of the consultees and officers.

A reserved matters application by Persimmon Homes and Hogg The Builder for details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of 655 dwellings and associated facilities granted under outline permission 01/01315/OUT.[Fulford Ward] [Site Visit].

Members considered a  major reserved matters application (13w) by Persimmon Homes and Hogg The Builder for details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of 655 dwellings and associated facilities granted under outline permission (01/01315/OUT).

In their update to Members, Officers reported that;

·        Fulford Parish Council had requested that the Committee defer the application until it fully deals with the issues raised in their letter relating to their request for the Council to revoke the outline planning permission, await English Heritage’s reconsideration of battlefield registration, require further environmental information on cultural heritage, landscape and visual amenity, bats and flood risk. Officers responded to these points.

·        The residents of Springfield House requested that the houses to the south of the site be one storey high and officers commented that they felt that there was not a clear reason for houses to be replaced by bungalows.

·        Further letters of objection had been received including an e-petition of 120 signatories against approval of the application.

·        The Director of Beverly House Management Company had written to request a 30 metre separation distance to the houses to the east of footpath 7 to retain the Public Right of Way (PROW) green corridor.

·        That the Highway Network Management confirmed that previous concerns regarding turning heads, tracking details and internal parking areas had generally been met but that the site still remained limited in space and many vehicle manoeuvring areas had been set out with minimum dimensions. They requested that some of the private driveways to dwellings fronting the 30 metre greenway should be set back to facilitate sufficient turning space.

·        Yorkshire Water had no objection in principle to the proposed sewer diversions, and building standoffs from the public sewer centre lines in the application.

In relation to additional conditions to be added to the application, if Members were minded to approve the application they suggested that;

·        Condition 1 be amended to include drawing numbers.

·        Condition 7 be amended to include Class E buildings(Outbuildings)

·        That a Bat Mitigation Strategy and Method Statement be submitted by the applicant.

·        That large scale details on the dwellings be submitted before construction work takes place.

·        That no landscaping of the area to the south of plot numbers 137-159, which includes the Archaeological Zone take place.

·        That a boundary hedge be planted along the rear boundaries of plots 39, 40 and 42 and a temporary boundary enclosure be provided along the line of the hedge during construction.

·        Revised highways layout plans be submitted; to show reconfiguration of the pedestrian lane and vehicle parking bay to provide a separation between the lane and the parking bay, the garages for plots 207-211 to be repositioned to allow a distance of 11 metres from the front elevation of the garage and the boundary with the green way.

·        That an informative be added to approval to highlight the Council’s Low Emissions Strategy.

Officers gave Members the following information in response to their queries;

·        That the term outbuilding referred to garden structures.

·        Yorkshire Water had confirmed agreement for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50a

A major full application by Mr. Richard Barker for the demolition of existing buildings and the re-profiling of bunds and areas of the former mine, construction of an anaerobic digestion combined heat and power facility and horticultural glasshouse and associated infrastructure and works. [Wheldrake Ward] [Site Visit].

Members considered a full major application by Mr Richard Barker for the demolition of existing buildings and reprofiling of bunds and areas of the former mine, construction of an anaerobic digestion combined heat and power facility and horticultural glasshouse and associated infrastructure works.

Officers pointed to a number of updates in their report which included;

·        The amendment of paragraph 1.5 (page 46) to read “Spring House Farm, which is located on the south side of the access road, at a distance of approximately 630m from the side entrance”

·        The amendment of paragraph 4.7  (page 68) to read “The Ministerial statement in respect of the statutory instrument confirmed the importance the Coalition Government places upon the Green Belt and recognised its invaluable role in protecting this treasured environmental and cultural heritage”

·        The amendment of paragraph 4.14 (page 6) to read “However, legal advice from an independent planning barrister given in 2011 with regards to the validity and enforceability of the condition, confirmed that the condition was fundamentally flawed and it was NOT capable of being enforced in full”.

·        Condition 2 (page 82) be amended to read “Reference to Drawing no. PP-001 Rev. P ‘Application Site Location Plan’ dated October 2012 and received 6 November’

·        That a letter had been received Nigel Adams MP on behalf of a number of constituents, in this he highlighted; overwhelming community opposition, congestion and lack of capacity on the A19, location in the Green Belt, the condition to restore the site should mining cease, the release of odorous gases to the rural environment, sustainability of a project which imported quantities of waste by road.

·        That a further letter had been received from Julian Sturdy MP which stated that; the development was inappropriate and alien within a rural community and Green Belt and so close to a Conservation Area, it would blight the landscape, the potential odorous gases would detrimentally affect residential amenity and showed the extent of local opposition.

·        A representation on behalf of Sam Smith’s Brewery who felt that the Officer’s report was flawed in terms of the basis for its assessment on the green belt, and that construction should not take place on site, due to ongoing Enforcement Action. The letter stated that there was the potential for challenge of any decision on this basis. The Council’s Legal Officer responded that he was satisfied that a decision could be taken on the basis of the report before Members.

·        Further correspondence received from local residents. One resident of Spring House Farm asked for further conditions to be added with regards an acoustic study, resurfacing of New Road and the removal or relocation of the speed humps.

·        That further information had been sent by the agent in regards to the transport information for the operation of the mine site, which indicated that there were around 60 two way Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) movements a day, of which 24 were articulated HGVs.

·        That the following amendments be made to permission if granted by Members ;

Condition 2  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50b

This report (presented to both Sub Committees and Main Planning Committee) informs Members of the Council’s performance in relation to appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate from 1^st January to 31^st March 2013, and provides a summary of the salient points from appeals determined in that period. A list of outstanding appeals to date of writing is also included.

Members considered a report which informed them of the Council’s performance in relation to appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate from 1^st January to 31^st March 2013.  The previous excellent performance was noted as having been significantly affected by the publication of the NPPF in March 2013, but  was more recently improving again. Some concerns were expressed regarding the level of consistency of decision- making by  appeal Inspectors.

RESOLVED:       That the report be noted.

REASON:           To inform Members of the current position in relation to planning appeals against the Council’s decisions as determined by the Planning Inspectorate, over the last 6 months and year.