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. Cllr Steels-Walshaw declared a non-prejudicial interest as a member of British Sugar Community Forum. No further interests were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the Planning Committee A meetings held on 18 January 2024 and 8 February 2024.

Resolved: 

1.   That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2024 be approved and signed as a correct record.

2.   That subject to the removal of the wording ‘regarding future funding arrangements’ at 3.12pm in minute for the application for Agricultural Land to the South of Low Moor Lane, Hessay, York [23/00626/FULM], the minutes of the meeting held on 8 February 2024 be approved and signed as a correct record.

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 are set as 2 working days before the meeting, in order to facilitate the management of public participation at our meetings.  The deadline for registering at this meeting is 5:00pm on Tuesday 5 March 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.

During coronavirus, we made some changes to how we ran council meetings, including facilitating remote participation by public speakers. See our updates (www.york.gov.uk/COVIDDemocracy) for more information on meetings and decisions.

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.

Erection of floodlit hockey pitch and tennis/netball courts, cricket nets, resurfacing and floodlighting to existing hockey pitch and associated access, car parking, coach drop-off, storage and landscaping [Clifton Ward]

This application had been withdrawn and was therefore not  considered by the Committee.

Erection of 3, 4, and 5 storey student accommodation building with associated car parking and access following demolition of existing buildings [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered a full application from British Sugar for the erection of 3, 4, and 5 storey student accommodation building with associated car parking and access following demolition of existing buildings at Enterprise Rent-a-car, 15 Foss Islands Road, York.

The Principal Officer Development Management outlined the application noting the reason for refusal in July 2023. He gave a presentation on the application noting the changes in floor plans and how these had been amended following the July 2023 refusal. He was asked and demonstrated the surrounding building heights in relation to the building. He was asked and explained that all of the rooms in the building were self contained studio rooms and there was a condition for a detailed planting scheme.

Graeme Holbeck, Planning Consultant for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He explained that the previous application for 136 bedrooms had been refused and an appeal for this had been lodged. The present application amended to a reduction to 133 rooms with additional communal facilities, a additional lift, and increased accessible car parking spaces (three spaces plus a maintenance space). He added that information regarding employment uses had been submitted and the application included a contribution to affordable housing. He detailed the building materials noting that the building was  BREEAM excellent. He noted that the application made efficient use of a brownfield site.

Graeme Holbeck was joined by Matt Parkins (Scheme Architect) to answer Member questions regarding their submission. They were asked and explained:

·        How the student management plan would work. It was noted that this was produced by Hello Student, the operator of the accommodation.

·        How the accessible car parking spaces would be used for drop offs.

·        That there were two other sites managed by the same operator.

·        All student drop off times would be allotted.

·        The access car parking spaces were compliant.

·        The retention of the cobbled sets depended on whether they could be reused.

·        Provision for wildlife was identified in the ecology report.

·        Students would be notified that there was no car parking on site. In response from a comment from the Chair, they undertook to feedback concerns regarding parking to the operator.

·        The size of the rooms had not been reduced and were 20m2 with 40% of rooms bigger than that.

·        All rooms were self-contained with a kitchenette and there was a private dining space on the communal area.

·        The roof protection was shown on the boundary.

·        Regarding affordability, students could apply for funding to help with their rent.

[At this point in the meeting, officers demonstrated the layout of rooms].

·        The three rooms in the first floor made into communal space was structural.

·        Regarding the loss of employment land they were not aware of any further expressions of interest and had submitted a statement which made a robust case for meeting the requirements for this.

·        There had not been any further of the site for employment and the applicant had used the CYC Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging schedule and it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

Variation of conditions of permitted application 15/00524/OUTM to alter green infrastructure, increase building heights, updates to detailed configuration of proposed Main Street access road, alterations to the drainage strategy and updates to approved illustrative phasing plan [Acomb Ward]

Members considered a major full application from Gregory Properties Ltd for the variation of conditions of permitted application 15/00524/OUTM to alter green infrastructure, increase building heights, updates to detailed configuration of proposed Main Street access road, alterations to the drainage strategy and updates to approved illustrative phasing plan at British Sugar Corporation Ltd, Plantation Drive, York. The Chair clarified that the application was for a variation and he drew attention to paragraph 1.4 of the published report.

The Principal Officer Development Management detailed the plans for the application, in particular the phasing plans and building heights. He noted the scheme amendments. At a Member’s request he demonstrated the location of the drain. In response to questions from the committee, officers explained:

·        The difference between the 2.5 and 3 storeys.

·        That the swale was an open drain, which was of higher ecological value than a closed drain. It was confirmed that the swale was for water run-off.

·        The number of rooms and viability would come through the reserved matters application. There was a tool to look at viability as part of the S106 agreement.

·        This application would broadly set parameters and it fixed building heights not housing types.

The Principal Officer Development Management then gave an update noting updates to conditions 2, 3 and 11, the deletion of condition 20 and an additional informative regarding highway design to include LTN 1/20 compliance. A Member asked how the application would help reduce carbon emissions. The Chair explained that the committee was limited in it’s decision making as this was an application for a variation. In response to a comment regarding the railway halt he noted that informative 8 referred to the railway halt.

Neil Jones, Planning Consultant, spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant. He welcomed the officer report and explained that the application sought approval for minor amendments to the existing permission. He noted the updates to the illustrative phasing plan, parameter plans, ground levels, and added that the green infrastructure had increased. He added that the increased building heights were away from the residential areas and that British Sugar were committed to the sustainable development of the site. He noted that there were no objections or material objections to justify refusal of the application. In response to Member questions he explained that:

·        British Sugar was the sole land owner

·        Concerning getting alternative providers for drainage, a number of private regulated operators had been appointed. The costs for this would be met through service charges.

·        The rationale for the increase from 2.5 to 3 storeys was related to green infrastructure

Members then asked officers further questions to which officers clarified that:

·        Regarding the Council not adopting the drainage was due to issues around maintenance, the applicant was the landowner and developer would find a solution. The Chair noted that there was mitigation in place for service charges for affordable housing.

·        The specifics around the Council not adopting the drainage was because of the specifics around the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.