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.

Members were invited to declare, at this point in the meeting, any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests, any prejudicial interests or any disclosable pecuniary interests that they might have in the business on the agenda.

Cllr Fisher declared that Cllr Pearson, who was to speak in objection to Cedar House 29 Station Road Haxby York

YO32 3LU’s application was his nephew, but since Cllr Pearson was speaking as a Ward Councillor and had no personal interest in the item himself, it was deemed that Cllr Fisher’s interest was not prejudicial or pecuniary.

Cllr Perrett declared that Cllr Webb, who was to speak in objection to 62 Heworth Road York YO31 0AD’s application was her partner, but indicated that they had not discussed the issue together and that the interest was not prejudicial or pecuniary.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 8 July 2021.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 8 July 2021be approved and then signed by the Chair as a correct record, subject to the amendment of Cllr Mary Urmston’s public participation under Minute 11, which now reads as below:

‘Cllr Mary Urmston (on behalf of Fulford Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application. She explained that the Parish Council was unable to support the expansion due to concerns about the felling of twenty trees which would result in harm to the public amenity and concerns around access arrangements. She asked why the number of car parking spaces had increased and noted that the access road was never intended as a parking area. She noted concerns about parking on the northern boundary. She was asked and explained the history of the turning circle and previous assurance that had been made about the access to the site.’

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 remote meetings. The

deadline for registering at this meeting is 5:00pm on Tuesday 10

August 2021.

To register to speak please visit

www.york.gov.uk/AttendCouncilMeetings to fill out an online

registration form. If you have any questions about the registration

form or the meeting, please contact the relevant Democracy

Officer, on the details at the foot of the agenda.

Webcasting of Remote Public Meetings

Please note that, subject to available resources, this remote

public meeting will be webcast including any registered public

speakers who have given their permission. The remote public

meeting can be viewed live and on demand at

www.york.gov.uk/webcasts.

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're

running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates

(www.york.gov.uk/COVIDDemocracy) for more information on

meetings and decisions.

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme on general issues within the remit of the Sub-Committee.

To determine the following planning applications:

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

This application seeks to demolish of a small existing rear extension and replace with a single storey rear extension to form a small kitchen extension.

Members considered an application which sought the demolition of a small existing rear extension and its replacement with a single storey rear extension to form a small kitchen extension.

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application, noting that there had been changes to the application since it was first submitted, with considerable reduction in the scale of the proposed changes. It was noted that Cllr Smalley, who had initially objected to the application, had withdrawn his objections since these changes were made, agreeing that the impact on amenities had been much reduced. Members asked officers a number of questions to which they answered that:

·        The proposed development would extend 2.3 meters further than the existing extension, roughly doubling its size.

·        The condition requested by Public Protection around kitchen odours was not considered necessary for a kitchen of the proposed size.

It was reported by the Chair that there were no public speakers registered to speak in support of or objection to this application, and members indicated that they had no more questions to ask on the application. After debate, Cllr Fisher moved approval, seconded by Cllr Crawshaw. A named vote was taken and by unanimous approval it was:

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions in the report.

Reason: To achieve a visually acceptable form of development.

This application seeks permission for the conversion of the existing property into two dwellings (dwelling 1 and 2) with associated extensions and alterations and the construction of a new dwelling (dwelling 3) in the rear garden with access from Ash Lane.

Members considered an application which sought permission for the conversion of the existing property into two dwellings (dwelling 1 and 2) with associated extensions and alterations and the construction of a new dwelling (dwelling 3) in the rear garden with access from Ash Lane.

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application. This was followed by an update with recent additional information and representations made. Members asked officers a number of questions to which they answered that:

·        There was existing access to the rear of the property, and that although the development would cause an increase in traffic in the lane, the increased traffic would not in the opinion of highways officers meet the threshold for a severe or unacceptable impact on safety as set out in paragraph 111 of the NPPF.

·        New passing places would be installed as part of the development to help ensure that traffic can flow.

·        In order for the passing place to be clearly marked, the gravel surface of the lane would have to be replaced with paving and a sign installed.

·        Officers considered the proposals to be acceptable from a planning point of view, and clarified that private disputes over ownership of land did not fall under the remit of the planning process.

·        While there was no way to enforce the use of the vehicle turntable in forward gear, the possibility of cars reversing was not enough to recommend refusal of the application.

·        There was enough room for bin storage for each of the proposed properties.

·        There were spaces reserved in the plan for cycle storage.

·        Emergency services were consulted on the proposed width of the lane after the installation of the new passing places and raised no objections.

·        There was a previous application for the property in 2003 which was refused and dismissed at appeal, and that the comments of the planning inspector for that application had been taken into consideration when creating the present application.

Public Speakers

Diane Flowers spoke in opposition to the application as a local resident. She explained that she considered the new bungalow to be out of character with the surrounding properties and that the application ignored the influence the new property would have on its surroundings. She further explained that she considered the application to have ignored the City of York Design Guide, arguing that the application will lead to overdevelopment, noise and light pollution, and restrict natural light to other properties. She also referred to previously rejected similar applications on the site and on a nearby property.

Richard Bailey spoke in opposition to the application as a local resident, citing errors and omissions in the planning officers’ report. He explained that he owns part of Ash Lane and the turning circle and that since the report encouraged parking in the lane for delivery vehicles and visitors, it was encouraging trespass on his land. He further explained that he considered that it had not been established that the new properties had a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

The application seeks full planning permission for the provision of two dwellings at the rear of 62 Heworth Road, which is a two storey property fronting the public highway with rear outbuildings and linear garden plot. The site comprises a collection of buildings in the northern part immediately south of no.62 and an area to the south that is undeveloped with overgrown vegetation. It is accessed by an existing private lane that also serves the Nags Head Public House to the west and commercial building behind it. The area of land is bounded to the east and south by residential properties on Heworth Road and East Parade. It lies within the Heworth/Heworth Green/East Parade/Huntington Road Conservation Area No.5 (“Heworth CA”). The site falls within Flood Zone 1 (low probability).

Members considered an application which sought full planning permission for the provision of two dwellings at the rear of 62 Heworth Road, which was a two storey property fronting the public highway with rear outbuildings and linear garden plot. The site comprised a collection of buildings in the northern part immediately south of no.62 and an area to the south that was undeveloped with overgrown vegetation. It was accessed by an existing private lane that also served the Nags Head Public House to the west and commercial building behind it. The area of land was bounded to the east and south by residential properties on Heworth Road and East Parade. It lay within the Heworth/Heworth Green/East Parade/Huntington Road Conservation Area No.5 (“Heworth CA”). The site fell within Flood Zone 1 (low probability).

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application. A question was raised by a member regarding amenity space, officers responded that the only outside space for 62 Heworth Road was its driveway.

Public Speakers

Lee Vincent, an architect and agent acting on behalf of the applicant spoke in favour of the application. He emphasised that he considered the proposal to be modest in nature and referred to the mitigation efforts on the impact on neighbouring properties. He explained that in his opinion the property would provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users, he also referred to the positive impact the development would have on biodiversity, and he referred to development’s adherence to the City of York Council’s Climate Change Policy. Referring to a previous question from a member, he clarified that the driveway for 62 Heworth Road was at the front of the property and that the area marked driveway on the papers was in fact an amenity space.

Molly Newton, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. She raised her concerns that the development would not create affordable housing and would have a detrimental impact on biodiversity, claiming that it did not take into account that the area is a priority habitat. She referred to the heritage plum tree in her garden, which had been mislabelled as an ordinary apple tree, concerned that the development would affect its roots. She also suggested that the Council’s Biodiversity Action Plan had not been adhered to, stating that a detailed ecology report had not been carried out. Finally, she stated that she had not been consulted on the impact of the development on her property, and raised concerns about the impact of increased traffic near the local primary school.

In response to a question from members, Mrs Newton stated that her greatest concern in regards to biodiversity was that three trees were due to be felled with no plans for them to be replaced. Furthermore she stated that there had been no communication from the applicants at any stage regarding air, light or noise pollution.

Cllr Robert Webb (Ward Councillor for Heworth Ward) spoke in opposition to the application.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.