Agenda and minutes

To receive and note apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from the Chair Cllr B Burton, who was substituted by Cllr Whitcroft, and from Cllr Fenton, who was substituted by Cllr Waudby.

In the absence of Cllr Burton, as Vice-Chair Cllr Cullwick took the Chair. Cllr Vassie proposed that Cllr Melly be appointed as Vice-Chair for the duration of the meeting. This was seconded by Cllr Nelson, and with the agreement of the committee Cllr Melly took over as Vice-Chair for the duration of the meeting.

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 the attached sheet for further guidance for Members.]

Members were asked to declare at this point in the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registrable interests that they might have in the business on the agenda, if they had not already done so in advance on the Register of Interests.

Cllr Whitcroft noted that he had an interest in agenda item 5a, Land to the Rear of 128 Fulford Road, he therefore withdrew from the meeting at the start of that item and took no part in the debate or decision making thereon.

In the interests of transparency, Cllrs Waudby, Orrell, Cullwick and Vassie noted that they knew Nick Love, one of the public speakers for agenda item 5b, The Jubilee, Balfour Street.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last Planning Committee B meeting held on 16 December 2024.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the last meeting held on 16 December 2024 were approved 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, 28 January 2025. 

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.

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 3 no. dwellings (Use Class C3) with associated access and landscaping following demolition of garage. [Fishergate Ward]

Members considered a full application for the erection of 3no. dwellings with associated access and landscaping following demolition of a garage.

[Members were given time at the start of this item to read the written submissions from five residents who had requested to speak at the meeting.]

The Head of Planning and Development gave a presentation on the plans for the development and the Planning Officer provided an update to the report and noted amendments to the report at paragraphs 2.5 and 5.37 and amendments to conditions 3 and15.  An informative in relation to the process for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) was also added.  The officer also clarified the plans and confirmed that the houses were two storeys and noted a further objection from a neighbour had been received.

In response to questions on the plans, officers confirmed the location of the proposed development and that they considered that the housing had planned sufficient outside space.  It was proposed not to allow residents to have access to resident parking permit due to the development’s sustainable location.  The size and use of the garages outside the redline plans was explained and the location of obscured glazing was clarified.  The plans for cycle storage were also explained.  Change of use at the property was granted in 2022 and the plans for the Theatre Royal arches were clarified.  The biodiversity value had been assessed to be acceptable by the CYC ecologist.  In relation to concerns from Highways, planning officers had considered all of the evidence before coming to a judgement.

Public Speakers

Helen Cozens, a resident, spoke in objection to the application.  She raised concerns relating to the scale of the development, describing it as overbearing, leading to a loss of sunlight.  She also stated that the development would be seen visible from the conservation area.  Finally, she highlighted vehicle access and questioned the parking provision.

Christopher Rainger, a resident, spoke in objection in the application.  He expressed surprise at the officer recommendation and went on to highlight the scale and style of the houses, which he described as out of keeping for the suburban area.  He was concerned that the houses would overlook neighbouring properties and concerned about the provision for parking.

Paul McGrath, a resident, also spoke in objection to the application noting the many resident objections, stating that parking and access issues would be increased, and emergency service vehicles would face access difficulties.  He questioned the planning process and stated that the development would not impact on the lack of social housing.

Graeme Holbeck, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.He noted the officer’s clear advice on separation differences and confirmed that it had informed the revised scheme. He highlighted that the redundant car park was an underused brownfield site in an urban area in a sustainable location and the planning officer has found no harm in the development of the site. He noted the difficulties of the site shape and explained that the developer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Conversion of former public house to form 6no. apartments with associated access, parking and bike stores and external alterations including dormer and the insertion of rooflights following demolition of outbuildings, canopy and external staircase. [Holgate Ward]

Members considered a full application for the conversion of a former public house to form 6no. apartments with associated access, parking and bike stores and external alterations including dormer and the insertion of rooflights following demolition of outbuildings, canopy and external staircase.

The Head of Planning and Development gave a presentation on the plans for the development and the Senior Planning Officer presented the update to the report which detailed additional plans, two additional representations (from Highways and York Civic Trust), and an amendment to paragraph 3.4 of the report.  The additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and officer recommendation remained the same as the published report.

There were no questions from Members on the plans.

Public Speakers

Nick Love, spoke on behalf of York CAMRA in objection to the application, noting that the building had originally been listed as an asset of community value (ACV) in 2016.  He raised concerns around the building being allowed to fall into disrepair, flawed marketing for the sale of the pub and the loss of community facility.

In response to questions, he stated that he was aware of a builder who had approached the agent for a viewing and been told that proof of funds was required for this.  He also stated that following a planning appeal, the burden was on the building owners to make good the building before first occupancy.  He explained the pub protection policy, contained in the draft local plan, related to the marketing and viability of the pub.  The described the ACV status as having substantial weight in the planning balance.

Paul Crossman, a local publican, also spoke in objection to the application. He described successful pubs in York which had previously been considered unviable where the buildings had been put up for redevelopment.  He questioned the developer’s intent and asked the committee to reject the application on the grounds of loss of amenity, heritage asset and failure to follow previous conditions imposed by the planning inspector.

In response to questions, he explained that he had made an offer, but the conditions placed on them by the agent which meant it was not possible to progress further, he believed that there was no genuine attempt to market the pub as a viable venture.  He stated it was not usual to be prevented from seeing the property prior to evidencing funds.  He noted that Compulsory Purchase orders were rare but he viewed this site a good prospect for a CPO.

Cllr Lucy Steels-Walshaw, ward councillor, spoke in objection to the application.  She described the pub as having previously made a positive contribution to the community in Holgate.  She noted that residents were in support of the community facility being retained and restored. She also raised concerns about the marketing as noted in the comments of York Civic Trust and urged the committee to refuse the application.

In response to questions, she noted the difference between city centre pubs and a local one.  She highlighted the distance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Construction of a 3G Artificial Grass Pitch with perimeter fencing, acoustic fencing, hardstanding areas, storage container, floodlights, an access footpath, and modular changing room building. [Fulford and Heslington Ward]

Members considered a full application for the construction of a 3G artificial Grass Pitch with perimeter fencing, acoustic fencing, hardstanding areas, storage container, floodlights, an access footpath, and modular changing room building.

The Head of Planning and Development gave a presentation on the plans for the development and confirmed there was no further update to the report.

In response to questions on the plans, officers confirmed the location of Germany Beck to the site, explained the landscaping plan and the detail of the plan for lighting which was covered in condition four and fourteen.  It was not possible to require energy efficiency measures due to the size of the development and the modular nature of the buildings.  The total number of cars on the site at any one time had been calculated to be less than the total number of parking spaces available on site.  The material used for the pitch was not a planning consideration.

Public Speakers

Cllr Kate Ravilious, ward councillor, was unable to attend the meeting and therefore submitted a written request asking the committee to commit to the monitoring of traffic pre and post development and a budget put aside for Traffic Regulation Orders.

[Cllr Warters left the meeting at 9:08 pm].

In response to further questions from Members, officers reported that condition 13 that required a community use scheme to be submitted and approved prior to the first use of the development, this covered pricing, hours of use and access by non-school users.  The condition could be amended to ensure that a plan was in place to avoid conflicts of school events, such as parents’ evenings, against community use.  They also confirmed that there was no vehicular access from Germany Beck, other than for school coaches exiting Fulford School.

Following a brief debate, Cllr Baxter proposed the officer recommendation, and this was seconded by Cllr Whitcroft. Members voted five in favour and one against the motion, with one abstention, and it was therefore:

Resolved:  That the application be approved, subject to a revision to condition 13 to ensure that there was no conflict between community use and school events, this revision being delegated to the Head of Planning and Development.

Reason:     The application for the construction of a multi-use artificial grass pitch with the introduction of floodlights and fencing on what is currently a grassed playing field associated with Fulford secondary school would result in the loss of an existing grassed playing pitch. However, the scheme offers a significant benefit to the provision of the curriculum at the school as well as providing a sporting facility for the wider community outside of school use. In consideration of neighbour amenity, the nature of the proposal has potential for some noise intensification and light pollution, however the time of operation is acceptable and would be conditioned for the school to ensure neighbours are not subject to unwanted noise after 9pm. Additionally the proposed floodlights are designed to comply with the requirements of the Institute of Lighting Engineers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.