Agenda and draft minutes

To receive and note apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received and noted for Cllrs Ayre, Clarke, Melly and Watson.

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 Steward noted that he had attended St Peter’s School and Cllr Burton noted that she had attended Queen Anne Grammar School. There were no further declarations of interest.

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 5 May 2026.

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.

To approve and sign the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 12 March 2026.

Resolved:   That the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 12 March 2026 be approved as a correct record subject to the word meaningly being changed to meaningful in reason I of the resolution.

This item invites Members to determine the following planning applications:

Members considered 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 2no. residential apartment buildings (use class C3) with associated parking, refuse, cycle stores, and landscaping following demolition of existing dwelling [Heworth Ward]

Members considered a full application from Swan Properties Ltd for the erection of 2 residential apartment buildings (use class C3) with associated parking, refuse, cycle stores, and landscaping following demolition of existing dwelling at 45 Hempland Lane York YO31 1AT.

The Head of Planning and Development outlined the plans for the application. She gave an update on the application noting that further representations and highways information had been received. She added that there were two amendments to the report at paragraph 5.27 relating to formatting and 5.49 referring to 10, not 6 trees.

Public Speakers

Antonia Gane, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. She explained her concerns regarding highway and pedestrian safety due to speeding and the narrowness of Hempland Lane, increased vehicle trips and limited parking. She noted that there was no road markings for bus stop and added her concern for the safety of children travelling to Hempland School. She was asked and explained that 420 pupils attended Hempland School and many passed the drive to the site.

Kevin Holland, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application on behalf of 21 residents. He suggested that there was a number of omissions to the report. He noted concerns about highway safety and noise and light impact on biodiversity. He suggested that there was misleading information in the report on scale and massing, adding that the development was out of character for the area and was overbearing and dominant. He was asked and explained concerns regarding highway, the width of the access point and that there was no path to building 2. He noted a number of omissions and errors in the report. The Chair clarified the swept path analysis. Kevin Holland was asked about his concerns on the impact on woodland and he explained the impact of light from the buildings on protected species.

John Bonarius, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. He noted that it was an overdevelopment of a biodiverse area. He added that there would be increased noise and vehicle movements, impact of light on neighbouring properties. He noted the development would cause traffic issues on Hempland Lane through increased parking and access and egress issues.

Cllr Ayre (Heworth Without Ward Cllr), spoke in objection to the application. He agreed with the comments from Cllr Webb as detailed in the committee update. He noted that Hempland Lane was a key route and noted his concerns that the site was not acceptable due to highways issues. He noted the development’s negative impact on wildlife.

[The meeting adjourned from 5.08pm until 5.12pm]

In response to questions from Members, Cllr Ayre explained:

The highways issues on Hempland Lane and safety concerns, and he believed that 5 or 6 homes would have been more suitable.

The highways objection to the quantum of development on the site.

There was a significant portion of children attending Hempland School passing the site when travelling to school and local amenities. He noted that there was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Erection of 36no. dwellings (use class C3) with associated open space, landscaping, access and parking following demolition of existing care home and garage blocks [Guildhall Ward]

[Cllr Burton joined the meeting and Cllr Steward gave apologies and left the meeting].

Cllr Whitcroft noted that he attended university with Sam Fitzpatrick (in attendance remotely to answer questions along with the applicant) and had not been in contact with them regarding the application.

Members considered a major full application from City of York Council for the Erection of 36 dwellings (use class C3) with associated open space, landscaping, access and parking following demolition of existing care home and garage blocks at Willow House 34 Long Close Lane York YO10 4UP.

The Head of Planning and Development gave a presentation on the application. She was asked and clarified the location of the Corsican pine tree. She explained that the scheme was a complete mix of house that noted that here was no lift in the proposal. She then gave an update on the application noting amendments to conditions.

Public Speakers

Zoe Dunn spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant. She explained that she was please to speak in support of completely affordable housing which was a mix of council housing and shared ownership. She thanked Lisa Otter and their team for their work and thanked officers at the pre application stage of the application.

Zoe Dunn was joined by Rob Moorhouse (remote) and Sam FitzPatrick (remote) to answer Member questions. They were asked and explained that:

They had addressed some comments from highways. It was explained that cycle parking met LTN 1/20.

The design was deliverable and was designed to Passivhaus but did not necessarily meet Passivhaus certification.

A 60% social rent and 40% shared housing split would be met.

Tracking had been carried out for CYC refuse vehicles using the turning circle. The turning circle meant that three trees didn’t need to be removed.

The scheme was in an R18 zone and a carriage survey of R18 showed that it was only 50% full. It was a car free development in an accessible location.

There were four disabled car parking spaces for wheelchair accessible homes. The development provided a range of accessible units. Every unit could be made accessible.

Lisa Otter spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant. She explained that the scheme delivered 36 new affordable homes. She added that the landscape was friendly and that sustainability was central to the design process. She thanked local residents for their engagement in the consultation. She thanked officers noting that the development was designed for the present and the future.

Lisa Otter was joined by Emily Ingham (remote) and Sophie Cole (remote) to answer Member questions. In response to Member questions, they explained that:

It was a strategy of the scheme that residents couldn’t apply for car permits as the scheme was car free. The applicant would need to work with the highways team about visitor parking.

The levels of sustainability were very high which meant that running costs were very low for residents.

Paragraph 5.104 of the published report detailed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.