Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all to the meeting. He explained there would be a number of substitutions at the meeting. From 2.30pm, Cllr Wilson would substitute for Cllr Whitcroft (who would arrive at  4.30pm), Cllr Melly would substitute for Cllr Nelson (who would arrive at  4.30pm), Cllr Baxter would substitute for Cllr Kelly (who would arrive at  4.30pm), and Cllr Fenton would substitute for Cllr Waudby (who would arrive between items). From 4.30pm, Cllr Melly would substitute for Cllr Steels-Walshaw.

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. Regarding agenda item 4a BHE Self Storage [23/02117/FUL], Cllr Fisher undertook to withdraw from the meeting for that application as it had been discussed at a Strensall with Towthorpe Parish Council meeting. Cllr Merrett noted that he was a member of York Cycle Campaign, York Bus Forum and previously a member of York Civic Trust had had had no involvement with their submissions for applications.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last Planning Committee A meeting held on 18 January 2024.

Resolved:  That the approval of the minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2024 be deferred to the next meeting.

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 6 February 2023.

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 Services, relating to the following planning applications, outlining the proposals and relevant policy considerations and setting out the views of consultees and officers.

[Cllr Fisher left the meeting at 2.38pm]

Change of use of agricultural land to the siting of 104 storage containers (use class B8) - retrospective (resubmission) [Strensall Ward]

Members considered a full application from Simon Dunn for the Change of use of agricultural land to the siting of 104 storage containers (use class B8) - retrospective (resubmission) at BHE Self Storage, Self Storage Facility, Lambshill Towthorpe Moor Lane, Strensall, York.

The Head of Planning and Development Servicesgave a presentation on the application. The Development Management Officer gave an update on additional information for the  application noting that an additional letter of support had been received, the drainage strategy had been received and an updated Ecologist response had been received . The additional information had been assessed and the Officer’s recommendation remains for refusal on grounds 1 and 2 as set out in the public report. Refusal reason 3 could be adequately addressed via condition, therefore refusal reason 3 was deleted.

Simon Dunn, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application. He explained the history of the storage facility and the work of the Investment Manager. He explained that the loss of income from subsidies resulted in a need to diversify. He added that he had received support from the MoD and explained the background to the increase in the storage containers. He noted that if he couldn’t subsidise the conservation farming would no longer continue.

Members then asked officers questions to which they confirmed that:

There were no changes to the access road but it would be conditioned to highways specifications.

·        Parking and turning could be subject to conditions.

·        Officers had looked at the balance and did not think that the very special circumstances outweighed the harm

Cllr Steward moved the officer recommendation for refusal for the reasons outlined in the additional information. This was seconded by Cllr Melly. On being put to the vote with nine voting in favour and one against, it was:

Resolved: That the application be refused.

Reasons:

1.   The application site is within the general extent of the Green Belt. In accordance with paragraph 152 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the proposed development constitutes inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The proposal conflicts with the essential characteristics of Green Belts (their openness and their permanence) and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt by resulting in encroachment of development into the countryside and to preserve the setting and special character of the city. The Local Planning Authority has concluded that there are no other considerations that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harms (adverse impact on landscape character and visual amenity and insufficient drainage information) when substantial weight is given to the harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances do not exist to justify the proposal. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 13 of the NPPF and policy GB1 of the Draft Local Plan (2018).

2.   The change in the character and appearance would sit at odds with its immediate context and would detract from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82a

Installation of a solar farm and associated infrastructure, including control station, DNO substation, access tracks, inverters and other auxiliary infrastructure [Rural West Ward]

Members considered a major full application from Neil Foxall for the installation of a solar farm and associated infrastructure, including control station, DNO substation, access tracks, inverters and other auxiliary infrastructure on agricultural land to the south of Low Moor Lane, Hessay, York.

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application. She was asked and demonstrated where the buildings were on the plan and in the photos. The Development Management Officer gave an update on additional information for the application noting there had been two additional representations in objection to the application and that there were amendments to conditions 13 and 16.

Public Speakers

Peter Rollings (Chairman of Rufforth with Knapton Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application, He explained that the solar installation was deemed inappropriate development in Green Belt. He noted that the solar farm would link Rufforth and Hessay with a mass of industrial equipment and would affect the view. He added that the site was not identified for a solar farm on the local area energy plan. He added that there were no very special circumstances and there was a more suitable site in the parish at Harewood Whin. He asked the committee to approach the site in a strategic manner and urged refusal of the application or deferral so that this site and Harewood Whin could be considered at the same time. He also noted concern about the impact of construction traffic.

In response to Member questions he explained that:

It was the Parish Council’s understanding that there was only sufficient grid capacity for one site. Officers were asked and explained that it was their understanding that there was only capacity for one solar farm and if there was two this would be determined by the National Grid who would seek additional capacity for one or each of them to upgrade capacity.

[At 3.12pm Cllr Melly sought legal advice from the Senior Solicitor. Following this advice she withdrew from the meeting at 3.13pm]

Richard Morgan, the Applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He introduced Solar 2, the company behind the application and thanked the planning department for their work on the application and balanced report. He explained that Hessay solar farm was a sensitively designed scheme that would deliver green energy to the local grid within two years. He added that it would delivery electricity to 13000 homes in York. He noted that there had been no objections apart from the Parish Council and the application complied with local and national planning policies. He noted the consultation that taken place and explained how the application linked to council policies.

Richard Morgan was asked a number of questions from Member to which he responded that:

The grid connection would be 40 megawatts and the yield would be different to that. Under planning they could build up to 49 megawatts.

Concerning native tree planting around the boundary, they were content through the condition process that that they could introduce  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Erection of 60no. bed care home (Use Class C2) with associated parking, landscaping and access following the demolition of existing buildings and the creation of new sports pitches for use by York Sports Club [Rawcliffe and Clifton Without Ward]

Cllr Melly declared that she was a Ward Councillor for Clifton with Rawcliffe and a Member of Clifton Parish Council and had not taken part in any decision making regarding Limetrees.

Members considered a major full application from Mr Garton, Ms Stubbs and Mr Elliot for the erection of a 60no. bed care home (Use Class C2) with associated parking, landscaping and access following the demolition of existing buildings and the creation of new sports pitches for use by York Sports Club at Limetrees, 31 Shipton Road, Clifton, York.

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a

Add info

Additional Representations

Two additional representations have been received.

Occupier of 5 Fairway, York who state that they support the idea of a care home, but the public right of way changes the status of the current boundary hedge between the site and the footpath.  They request that the planning authority apply a hedgerow retention order to the boundary hedge between the site and the footpath (northeast boundary).

CYC Ecologist response:

The Council’s Ecologist has verbally advised that the hedgerow has been surveyed by the Applicant’s Ecologist and the hedgerow was assessed to be species poor.  It would not meet the criteria under the hedgerow regulations to be deemed an ‘important hedgerow’ suitable for protection under this regime.  Additionally, the hedgerow is included within the ecological management plan which outlines measures for its retention, protection and enhancement.  

Sport England maintains its objection as a non statutory consultee. The outstanding matters relate to ball strike; the new playing field is likely to be at risk of ball strike from the existing cricket ground and does not demonstrate how users of the new playing field will be protected.

Sport England has suggested that it will review its objection as a non statutory consultee if the applicant can provide the following:

1. the applicant undertake a ball strike risk assessment to consider the issues of ball strike from existing cricket pitches to the new playing field and examine any mitigation required.

2. Alternatively, the applicant could propose a planning condition that sets out that the new area of playing field will not be in use for sport when cricket is being played. 

3. if the application does not wish to address the issue of ball strike, they should provide further information setting out why this is the case having regard to paragraph 193 of the NPPF.

Applicants’ response: The applicant has reviewed Sport England’s latest comment and clarified that LaboSport are a competent company and have undertaken a ball strike assessment. They are concerned that Cricket England may not have read the report. They state that LaboSport’s graph show that ball strikes from the cricket first team pitch can reach 65m in length, however the new playing fields are 69.5m, thus being outside of the ball strike area and the ball will hit the ground before going onto the new playing fields. The Sports Club are a competent community club which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Reserved matters application for layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access for the creation of a new public realm with associated infrastructure and landscaping and alterations to the existing road network pursuant to outline planning permission 18/01884/OUTM [Holgate Ward]

Members considered a major reserved matters application from Homes England and Network Rail Infrastructure Limited for the  layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access for the creation of a new public realm with associated infrastructure and landscaping and alterations to the existing road network pursuant to outline planning permission 18/01884/OUTM at York Central, Leeman Road, York.

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application. She was asked and demonstrated the location of the two pedestrian crossings and cycle lanes. She also demonstrated the pedestrian, cycle and routes on Hudson Boulevard and pedestrian, cycle and bus routes.

The Development Management Officer gave an update on additional information for the  application, She noted there was an additional consultation response from design and sustainability. In addressing the concerns, relating to disincentivising pedestrians from using the cycle lane through Leeman Road tunnel, the Applicant had advised that they could introduce a level change but are concerned this could cause a safety issue.  However they considered this level of detail could be agreed at the discharge of conditions stage.

The Development Management Officer noted that that since the report had been published the Applicants had submitted an amended plan to move the northern pedestrian crossing point closer to the Bullnose/Mineral Office building to allow vehicles exiting the access to achieve an improved visibility than what had been previously presented. She detailed the concerns from highways officers about the control and traffic and interactions on the impact of this on the two-way cycle route, a pedestrian crossing and three accesses all in one small area. They had requested a road safety audit which was already included at condition 8. She gave an update on the Public Sector Equalities Duty and detailed the removal of condition 7 (replaced by condition 7.1) and amended condition 9 which  Condition 9 (which became condition 8).

Leon Guyett (Home England Project Director, York Central) spoke in support of the application as an Applicant. He noted that Committee Members would be aware that the York Central development had begun. He outlined the benefits of the application and noted that the delivery of the square was supported by other partners and would be enjoyed by the people of York.

Jason Syrett (Architect and Design Lead, York Central) spoke in support of the application as an Applicant. He detailed the design benefits of the project and explained that the design had been made after years of consultation. He noted that the square was fully accessible and included an inclusive entrance to the National Railway Museum. He added that the square used high quality materials and locally sourced materials. He added that the square would set a precedent for the design of public realm at York Central. He noted that if approval was granted they would work with officers and the square would be of a high standard.

Following speaking in support of the application, Leon Guyett and Jason Syrett were joined by

Following debate, Cllr Merrett moved the officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.