Agenda and draft minutes

At this point in the meeting, Members and co-opted members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary interest, or other registerable interest, they might have in respect of business on this agenda, if they have not already done so in advance on the Register of Interests. The disclosure must include the nature of the interest.

An interest must also be disclosed in the meeting when it becomes apparent to the member during the meeting.

[Please see attached sheet for further guidance for Members].

Members were asked to declare at this point in the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest or other registerable interest they might have in respect of business on the agenda, if they had not already done so in advance on the Register of Interests. There were none.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last Planning Committee A meetings held on 3 March and 19 March 2024.

Resolved:  That:

1.   The minutes of the meeting of Planning Committee A held on 7 March 2024 be approved and signed as a correct record.

2.   The minutes of the meeting of Planning Committee A held on 19 March 2024 be approved and signed as a correct record subject to Tony Franklin being amended to Tom Franklin and the sentence at the end of Cllr Kilbane’s speech to change from ‘At this point he was asked how many trees would be removed and the Chair detailed the removal of trees to the committee’ to ‘At this point he was asked how many trees would be removed and using the screen in the room showing the site plan, the Chair detailed the removal of trees to the committee.’

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered to speak can do so. Members of the public may speak on agenda items or on matters within the remit of the committee.

Please note that our registration deadlines have changed to 2 working days before the meeting, in order to facilitate the management of public participation at meetings.  The deadline for registering at this meeting is 5:00pm on Tuesday 14 May 2024.

To register to speak please visit www.york.gov.uk/AttendCouncilMeetings to fill in an online registration form.  If you have any questions about the registration form or the meeting, please contact Democratic Services.  Contact details can be found at the foot of this agenda.

Webcasting of Public Meetings

Please note that, subject to available resources, this meeting will be webcast, including any registered public speakers who have given their permission. The meeting can be viewed live and on demand at www.york.gov.uk/webcasts.

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme on general matters within the remit of the Planning Committee A.

This item invites Members to determine the following planning applications:

Members considered a schedule of reports of the Head of Planning and Development, relating to the following planning applications, outlining the proposals and relevant policy considerations and setting out the views of consultees and officers.

Members considered a major full application for the erection of charity children's centre with outdoor recreation facilities to also include; landscaping, footpaths, crossings, car parking and cycle parking following demolition of existing barn and polytunnel at Bradleys Farm Shop, New Lane, Huntington, York.

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application. She showed the location of the site in relation to the outline planning permission housing on New Lane. Members were provided with an update in which they were informed that there was an additional letter of support from a Ward Cllr for Huntington and New Earswick Ward. There had also been a request from the Agent for the Applicant for a change of wording to conditions 11, 15, 16, 20, 22 and 26 (Prior to commencement of development (excluding demolition), which had been agreed. The Head of Planning and Development Services showed where planning applications for parcels of land to the north of the application site were. She also noted condition 3 that the site shall operate in strict accordance with the submitted Operator Statement (dated July 2023) at all times.

Public Speakers

Diane Geogheghan-Breen (Chair of Fulford Huntington Parish Council) explained that the Parish Council objected to the application as it was in the green belt and had supported applications for housing on New Lane. She noted that there would be a further application for housing on New Lane. She expressed the Parish Council’s concern about flooding in the cemetery which would mean that there couldn’t be double graves and was impacting on the cemetery finances. She noted the Parish Council’s further concerns about car parking and a lack of public transport. She noted that if approved, the Parish Council would like to work closely with The Island. She was asked and explained that because the site was not being used for housing, in the neighbourhood plan it was agreed that there would be no further building on New Lane and the application would mean a loss of green belt.

Nigel Poulton MBE (Chief Executive Officer, The Island) spoke in support of the application, stating that it had supported over 2000 young people who had faced challenges. He explained that despite increased demand, they had limited space that impacted on it. He added that the new building would allow them to build relationships with community groups and young people participating in workshops. He explained the outdoor areas of the site noting that it would have diverse areas. He explained how the building would be used and that it would be a permanent legacy.

Nigel Poulton MBE was joined by Philip Holmes (O’Neill Associates - Planning Consultant) and Simon Pratt (SCP - Transport Planning) to answer Member questions. In response to questions from the committee they explained that:

The Island had funding for capital costs and the new centre would help support young people.

[At this point, the Chair noted that the Head of Planning and Development Services had drawn attention to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

Reserved matters application for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of redevelopment of the former North Selby Mine site to a leisure development comprising of a range of touring caravan and static caravans and associated facilities following the grant of outline permission 19/00078/OUTM [Wheldrake Ward]

Members considered a Major Reserved Matters Application for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of redevelopment of the former North Selby Mine site to a leisure development comprising of a range of touring caravan and static caravans and associated facilities following the grant of outline permission 19/00078/OUTM at North Selby Mine, New Road, Deighton, York.

The Head of Planning and Development Services outlined the application and gave a presentation on it. She noted that the siting of the static and touring caravans was in line with the reserved matters application. She was asked and showed the location of the amenity block, which was shown as welfare facilities on the plans.

The Development Management Officer gave an update on the application noting that corrections to the report included references to chalets in the report should read static caravans. He explained that the applicant indicated that the total number of caravans envisaged would be 92 touring caravans and 231 static caravans which are the numbers conditioned under condition 3 of Outline Permission 19/00078/OUTM and 20/01546/FUL at the approved density. He also noted additional representation from Escrick Parish Council regarding the entertainment/amenity buildings which should be conditioned as necessary. A draft condition was proposed restricting use of any facilities at the site to those resident and regarding permitted development, there was no permitted change within the scope of the Use Classes Order.

Public Speaker

Bruno Hannemann, a local resident (representing himself, his wife and the residents of two other properties), spoke in objection to the application. He noted that the new application brought in new buildings and facilities that were not included in the other application which would impact on noise and introduce noise disturbance. He was also concerned about non residents on site, and he requested that the committee read his letter in full before considering the application.

Bruno Hannemann was asked a number of questions from Members. He was asked how long he had lived there and the Chair noted that this was not a material consideration. The Chair advised that the objection letter could not be considered as officers had considered comments on the application.

Members asked officers further questions to which they responded that:

The reception and wellness building was in the previous application and the existing buildings would be retained for recreational use. There was a noiuse management plan conditioned and public protection had been consulted and were happy with the application.

There was no agreement to take away any other buildings.

[At this point, Cllr Steward noted that his partner’s family owned a caravan site].

There were no day visitors to the park. Condition 6 was noted and it was clarified that the facilities on site could only be used by residents. The Chair noted that the wording of the condition could be tightened if the committee felt it was required.

The recreational strategy and noise management plan were included in the outline planning permission.

Regarding the concerns of Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, there was a site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101a

Extension to provide storage, integrated distribution and logistics centre (B8 Use) with ancillary office/welfare space, service yard, parking areas, and landscaping (resubmission) [Rural West York Ward]

Members considered a Major Full Application for an extension to provide storage, integrated distribution and logistics centre (B8 Use) with ancillary office/welfare space, service yard, parking areas, and landscaping (resubmission) at Pavers Ltd, Catherine House, Northminster Business Park, Harwood Road, Upper Poppleton, York.

The Head of Planning and Development Services outlined and gave a presentation on the application. The Principal Officer Development Management gave an update noting a correction to proposed plans list. Clarification was given on the economic benefits, as set out in sections 5.22 and 6.3 of the published report.

Public Speakers

Jason Paver (Managing Director, Pavers) spoke in support of the application. Her explained that Pavers was a family owned business based in York for 70 years. He detailed the number of people working for the company and it’s contributions to charity. He explained that the company had had to use storage all over the country and there was a desire to keep the company in York. He added that they had worked hard to address the concerns since the last application was submitted and had worked with officers on the application. He noted that approval would allow Pavers to remain in York and provide economic growth in York.

Jason Paver was joined by Jim Young (Head of Facilities, Pavers) and Philip Holmes (O’Neill Associates, Planning Consultant) to answer Member questions on the application. In response to Member questions, they explained that:

Pavers had intended to buy the DPD site.

There had been a 200% online expansion since COVID in buying online and the expectation was that the building being applied for would meet their needs and the majority of retailers used one site for distribution.

Regarding landscaping, the intention was to start with mature trees and they would like to get landscaping started as soon as possible.

There was a mixture of deciduous trees in the landscaping plan.

They had had a number of conversations with Northminster estates it wasn’t envisaged at the time that the whole site would go. The scheme for DPD essentially landlocked Pavers.

The conveyor belt did not need to be in a straight row.

In response to questions from Members, officers explained that:

The principle for very special circumstances was the same for a new building in the green belt and extending a building on the green belt.

Regarding the weighting of economic benefits should the economic position change, the committee had to consider the application before it.

The Planning Inspector has not considered the site as part of the Local Plan process.

The BREEAM rating of very good was consistent of buildings of that type and was as good as it could be for that type of building.

Strategic policies were not being applied to the site.

CllrMerrett moved the Officer recommendation to delegate authority to be given to the Head of Development Services to determine the final detail of the planning conditions and refer the application to the Secretary of State and  should the application not be called  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.