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 asked to declare, at this point in the meeting, any personal interests, not included on the Register of Interests, or any prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests they may have in respect of business on the agenda. Cllr Doughty declared a non prejudicial interest in agenda item 3g (Forest Hill Farm, Pottery Lane, Strensall, York [16/01061/FUL] as he was employed by a railway company.  Cllr D’Agorne declared a personal non prejudicial interest in agenda item 3a (York St John University Playing Fields, Windmill Lane, York [18/02824/REMM] as he was a supporter of York Cycle Campaign (who were speaking on the application). Cllrs Cullwick and Cuthbertson both declared an interest in agenda item 3b (York St John University, Lord Mayors Walk, York [18/02819/FULM] as there were former employees of York St John University [check recording]. Cllr Dew declared an interest in agenda item 3g (Forest Hill Farm, Pottery Lane, Strensall, York [16/01061/FUL], as he had known the applicant for a number of years.

It is at this point in the meeting that members of the public who have registered their wish to speak can do so. The deadline for registering is by 5:00pm on Wednesday 17 April 2019. Members of the public can speak on specific planning applications or on other agenda items or matters within the remit of the Committee.

To register, please contact the Democracy Officer for the meeting on the details at the foot of this agenda.

Filming or Recording Meetings

Please note that, subject to available resources, this meeting will be filmed and webcast, or recorded, including any registered public speakers who have given their permission. This broadcast can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/webcasts.

Residents are welcome to photograph, film or record Councillors and Officers at all meetings open to the press and public. This includes the use of social media reporting e.g. tweeting.  Anyone wishing to film, record or take photos at any public meeting should contact the Democracy Officer (whose contact details are at the foot of this agenda) in advance of the meeting.

The Council’s protocol on Webcasting, Filming & Recording of Meetings ensures that these practices are carried out in a manner both respectful to the conduct of the meeting and all those present.  It can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11406/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_of_council_meetings_20160809.pdf

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.

This item invites Members 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.

Appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for a residential development of 69 dwellings with associated access roads and public open space [Hull Road Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major reserved matters application from Yorkshire Housing for the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for a residential development of 69 dwellings with associated access roads and public open space.

Members were provided with an update to the report. It was reported that there had been amendments to condition 2 due to revised plans indicating minor amendments to the layout of the equipped play area, adopted highway limits, boundary treatment along the main access to David Lloyd and minor parking adjustments. There had also been one additional objection regarding the provision of hedgehog and wildlife boxes.  In response to a Member question it was clarified that a requirement for hedgehog tunnels could be requested from the applicant.  Members were informed that the additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and recommendation remained unchanged from the published report. 

Chris Wedgewood  (Save Windmill Lane Playing Fields) spoke in objection to the application on the grounds of a material difference from the site plans, the destruction of trees, the site being in the Green Belt, a lack of cycling provision, the layout and type of housing and a disproportionate housing mix.

Fiona Fayre (Save Windmill Lane Playing Fields) spoke in objection to the application. She was a local parent opposed to building on playing fields, and she accepted that whilst concessions needed to be made, there needed to be work on maintaining the balance at that side of the city. She added that there needed to be the protection of trees.

Peter Sheaf (York Cycle Campaign) spoke in objection to the application. He asked for improvements in cycling provision on the site, specifically a cycle route to the west of the site which would adhere to planning and policy requirements. He suggested that traffic forecasts had been underestimated and he noted the benefits of encouraging residents to cycle. Mr Sheaf was asked and confirmed that York Cycle Campaign did not submit an objection to the application.

The Applicant, Steve Hughes (Yorkshire Housing) spoke in support of the application. He noted that the application would provide new high quality affordable homes that would provide people the opportunity to access housing at all levels. He added that Yorkshire Housing had worked hard with consultants to consult with residents.

Mr Hughes was asked and confirmed that:

·        Save for a number of trees, the mature and protected woodland and public access remained on the site.

·        The woodland management plan had been submitted as part of the planning application.

·        Yorkshire Housing would be responsible for the long term management of the woodland and would be willing to engage with residents on this.

·        The roof tiles were a standard roof tile and the use of solar roof tiles was part of the outline planning requirements.

·        The hedgehog boxes could be included in the boundary treatment.

·        The pumping station had not moved and a small number of self seeded trees near it would be removed and there had been significant planting proposed for the removed trees.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

Demolition of 3 student accommodation blocks and erection of a new three storey teaching block, auditorium and covered atrium with associated landscaping [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application from Richard Hirst for the demolition of three student accommodation blocks and erection of a new three storey teaching block, auditorium and covered atrium with associated landscaping.

An officer update was given. It was reported that at the Committee site visit, Members queried the loss of the memorial Birch tree located within the green open space to the front of the existing accommodation buildings. Following this the Applicant confirmed that as part of the proposals this tree would be removed and the reasons for this were detailed. Officers had considered and assessed the position of the tree officer’s considered that there was possibility of retaining the tree without affecting the overall quality of the development and suggested that if Members felt the tree to be worthy of retention an additional condition could be imposed. Members were informed that the additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and recommendation remained unchanged from the published report. 

Rob Hickey (York St John University) was in attendance to answer questions. He was asked and confirmed that they did not want to use Garden Street for access. He was asked and detailed the number of trees to be removed and replanted and he confirmed that the memorial Birch tree could be retained.

Cllr D Craghill (Ward Councillor) spoke on the application. She welcomed the planning application which included community use of the buildings and sustainable features. She raised concern about the building line on Garden Street and requested that it be put back and that the street not be used for access. She noted residents concern regarding noise and asked for a condition regarding the soundproofing the music practice rooms. She also requested that the memorial Birch tree be retained.

Concerning the points made by Cllr Craghill, Officers clarified that the control of noise was covered by the Control of Pollution Act 1974 which was why there was an informative on amplified music, which was deemed to be reasonable by Members. Should Members be minded, they could impose a condition on the details of soundproofing.

In response to questions raised concerning the building line, it was clarified that the alterations to the rear elevation (including the building line) were covered under delegated authority.

Resolved: That Delegated Authority be given to the Assistant Director responsible for Planning and Public Protection to:

1.      agree and accept such amended plans for the Garden Street elevation and frontage as the Assistant Director responsible for Planning and Public Protection considers reasonably necessary and thereafter to approve the application as amended and grant conditional planning permission;

2.      finalise the additional conditions and informative below, and recommended conditions as set out in the report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Assistant Director responsible for Planning and Public Protection considers reasonably necessary.

Additional conditions

1.   CEMP informative including hours of work to become a  condition

2.   Restriction to preclude use of Garden Street

3.   Memorial Birch tree to be retained

4.   Details  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

Erection of a residential apartment block, landscaping and associated works (Block D) [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application from Hungate (York) Regeneration Limited for the erection of a residential apartment block, landscaping and associated works (Block D).

An officer update was given in which Members were advised that revised plans had been received which detailed changes to cycle parking provision. This change was reflected in updated plans condition (Condition 2). Concerning the education contribution, there been ongoing discussion with Education as to whether the revised contribution towards Education met all of the CIL tests. Therefore the recommendation that the Assistant Director Planning and Public Protection be granted delegated powers to determine the education contribution to be secured in the Section 106 Agreement. The additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and the recommendation are unchanged from the published report. 

Following the update, officers confirmed that:  

Section 6(i)b of the report should state paragraph 5.8 above.

CYC did not have a log of complaints referred to in the complaints procedure referenced in the CEMP.  It was suggested that a copy of this log could be requested from the applicant. 

Officers would look into the funding for play equipment from the previous S106 Agreement.

Suzanne Yates (Agent for the Applicant) spoke in support of the application. She noted that the application included a sixth floor extension and removal of the car park in the basement (car parking spaces had been included in earlier phases) . The visual impact of this was limited and there was no overall increase in the building height.  She added that the building adhered to a high level of sustainability.

Suzanne Yates was asked and explained that the complaints had been adhered to and there was a full time Community Liaison Officer in place. She was asked and explained the actions taken when there had been breaches in working conditions.

Cllr D Craghill (Ward Councillor) spoke on the application. She noted that it was a sustainable building in a high density location. She expressed concern that the blocks were too high and close together and that the main problem was a lack of affordable housing.

Resolved: That;

(i)           Permission be granted subject to:

a)        Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure the following obligations:

 -   an education contribution;

 -   affordable housing – provision of 17% affordable housing for the 186 units as approved with 20% affordable housing for the additional 10 apartments;

-    off-site sports provision – financial contribution of £63,900 towards improvements to Hull Road Park buildings, changing and ancillary facility improvements and additional sports facilities at Burnholme Community Health Hub; and multi-use games area within Heworth Without.   

-      off-site amenity and play space provision – financial contribution of £100,004 towards projects at St. Nicholas Fields, Museum Gardens and Foss Islands Path.

-      sustainable travel - payment to the occupier upon first occupation of each residential unit either a travel pass or a non-transferable voucher to be used to purchase a bicycle.

-      car club payment of £37,200;

b)        Prior completion of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

Erection of 3 extensions to packing building [Osbaldwick And Derwent Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Providence Holdings Ltd for  the erection of three extensions to a packing building.

The Applicant, Mr M Cockerill was in attendance to answer questions. He was asked and confirmed that the flood lights could be on when needed and the LED lights could shine downward.

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

Reason:     The proposed extensions are considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt and would, therefore, by definition be harmful to the Green Belt.  Substantial weight is to be given to any harm to the Green Belt. In accordance with the NPPF, inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. There is limited harm on the openness of the Green Belt and limited harm to the green belt purposes. The very special circumstances are considered cumulatively to be afforded significant weight in the decision making process. The proposal is also considered to be acceptable on the other relevant matters including design, drainage and highway safety. Moderate weight is considered to be applied to these matters. Weighing up the planning balance, it is considered that with regard to this proposal, the very special circumstances set out do outweigh the identified harm to the Green Belt.

Erection of two storey building (mixed use class B1, B8) and detached workshop with access and associated parking [Rural West York Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application from Alastair Gill for the erection of a two storey building (mixed use class B1, B8) and detached workshop with access and associated parking.

Officers provided an update reporting that there was an error in paragraph 2.3 of the report as the application site is within the Rufforth with Knapton Neighbourhood Plan boundary. They advised that as stated in 4.10 the Neighbourhood Plan raised objection to the scale of the proposed expansion of the business park.  However it advised that an extension to the park, as presented in 2016, would be acceptable subject to certain criteria with regards access, screening and the proposed uses. Officers advised that the application site was within the land that was proposed to form an extension to the business park in the 2016 consultation of the Draft Local Plan. The proposals met the criteria in the Neighbourhood Plan regarding access, (landscape) screening and the proposed uses and as such the scheme in this respect would not conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan.  

Officers further advised that further to the site visits where prematurity was discussed, prematurity is a concept in planning policy as to whether approval of a planning application would prejudice emerging policy. Refusal on prematurity grounds was  unlikely to be justified unless granting planning permission would undermine the plan process and the emerging plan was at an advanced stage. Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the Local Planning Authority need to indicate clearly how the grant of planning permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process. Referring to paragraphs 49 and 50 of the NPPF, Members were reminded that NPPF was clear that developments may only be treated as premature in respect of development proposals which are individually so substantial, or whose cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would prejudice the outcome of the plan making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which ought properly to be taken in the development plan context.  The current proposal envisages a modest industrial development within the context of a draft allocation within the 2018 Draft Plan and identified as making a contribution employment provision. As such it is not considered to be of such a scale as to be prejudicial to the local plan process.

The additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and the recommendation are unchanged from the published report. 

The Applicant, Alistair Gill, spoke in support of the application. He explained that FCS would like to establish York as a head office. He noted the employment opportunities that would be created and that Northminster Business Park was one of three areas identified as employment sites in the draft Local Plan. He explained that the how the current proposals met the needs of FSC and he went on to explain the screening of the boundaries. He added that the benefits of the proposals outweighed the potential harm.

Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Erection of new industrial facility (use class B2/B8 with ancillary office B1a) with access road, parking and landscaping [Rural West York Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application from Helen Lowther and George Burgess for the erection of a new industrial facility (use class B2/B8 with ancillary office B1a) with access road, parking and landscaping.

Officers provided Members with an update on the application. The further comments and conditions received from Public Protection were outlined.

Members were advised that further to the site visits where prematurity was discussed, prematurity is a concept in planning policy as to whether approval of a planning application would prejudice emerging policy. Refusal on prematurity grounds was  unlikely to be justified unless granting planning permission would undermine the plan process and the emerging plan was at an advanced stage. Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the Local Planning Authority need to indicate clearly how the grant of planning permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process. Referring to paragraphs 49 and 50 of the NPPF, Members were reminded that NPPF was clear that developments may only be treated as premature in respect of development proposals which are individually so substantial, or whose cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would prejudice the outcome of the plan making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which ought properly to be taken in the development plan context.  The current proposal envisages a modest industrial development within the context of a draft allocation within the 2018 Draft Plan and identified as making a contribution employment provision. As such it is not considered to be of such a scale as to be prejudicial to the local plan process.

The additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and the recommendation are unchanged from the published report. 

The agent  for the applicant, Katharine Morgan, spoke in support of the application. She advised that the application related to the relocation of Unipart from Leeman Road to Northminster Business Park. She explained that the applicant had been approached by York Central and then went on to outline the case for very special circumstances.

Officers were asked and confirmed that:

·        The timing of lighting during night time hours.

·        Regarding the investigation of alternative sites, eight sites had been considered, two of which were in the York boundary.

·        As there were no time limits on conditions relating to planting and landscaping, these were for the lifetime of the development.

·        The building could be green until the planting had grown.

Resolved: That delegated authority be given to the Assistant Director for Planning and Public Protection to:

i. refer the application to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government under the requirements of section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and should the application not be called in by the Secretary of State, then APPROVE the application subject to

ii. the conditions set out in this report and additional and revised conditions below with the Assistant Director granted delegated powers to determine the final  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Change of use of land and building to a bus depot including an extension to the north elevation of the main building complex and a detached single storey office building, and hardstanding (retrospective) (resubmission) [Strensall Ward]

Members considered a full application from York Pullman Bus Company Ltd for a change of use of land and building to a bus depot including an extension to the north elevation of the main building complex and a detached single storey office building, and hardstanding (retrospective) (resubmission).

The Applicant, Tom James (Managing Director, York Pullman Bus Company Ltd), spoke in support of the application. He outlined the very special circumstances for approval of the application as being job losses, the loss of home to school transport in York and emergency work for major rail providers. He was asked and explained the York Pullman bus sites in York explaining that other sites had been considered and discounted because of their unsuitability.

In relation to Pottery Lane access he was asked and confirmed that he would be agreeable to funding passing places and to changing the types of trees used to screen the site.  

Andrew McGuinness (Regional Manager, Northern & Yorkshire Regions, CPT UK and Vice Chair, York Quality Bus Partnership), spoke in support of the application. He explained that CPT represented bus operators and he noted the impacts of the loss of operating facilities and development opportunities for bus operators in York. He also noted the cost implications of moving the location of the depot.

Bill Woolley spoke in support of the application. He noted that he worked for Rufforth Estates and had no involvement in the application. He noted that local operators in York had been lost with York Pullman being the only independent bus operator remaining. He noted the operators contribution to home to school transport and that the benefits of the application outweighed the harm to the Green Belt.

John Chapman (Strensall Parish Councillor) spoke in objection to the application. He noted that Strensall Parish Council always supported local employment and home to school transport, however, the application failed to demonstrate the case for very special circumstances.

In response to a Member question, officers confirmed that the North Yorkshire County Council response regarding home to school transport was included in the committee report.

Following debate it was:

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to referral to the Secretary of State (if required) and the following conditions (the wording of which to be agreed by the Assistant Director, Chair and Vice Chair:

Condition 1 – Plans

Condition 2  - Highway work condition regarding the provision of two passing places on Pottery Lane

Condition 3 - Landscaping plan to include a mixed nature hedge instead of leylandii.

Condition 4 - Electric vehicle recharging points

Condition 5 - Submission of lighting scheme.         

Reason:     The proposed development would constitute appropriate development in the Green Belt that does falls within the listed exceptions in paragraphs 145 and 146 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018). The considerations put forward by the applicant are considered to amount to the very special circumstances that are required to clearly outweigh the totality of harm to the Green Belt and other harm identified.  The proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

This report (presented to both Planning Committee and the Area Planning Sub Committee) informs Members of the Council’s performance in relation to appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate between 1 October and 31 December 2018, and provides a summary of the salient points from appeals determined in that period. A list of outstanding appeals at date of writing is also included. 

Members received a report informing them of the Council’s performance in relation to appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate between 1 October and 31 December 2018, and provided a summary of the salient points from appeals determined in that period. A list of outstanding appeals at date of writing was also included. 

Resolved:  That the report be noted.

Reason:     To inform Members of the current position in relation to planning appeals against the Council’s decisions as determined by the Planning Inspectorate.

Thanks was recorded to Committee Members and the Chair for their work during their terms of office as Councillors.