Agenda and minutes
Venue: LNER Community Stadium, Monks Cross, York
Contact: Angela Bielby Democracy Officer
Declarations of Interest
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 Rowley declared a non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 4b [ as he had a previous working relationship with the Agent for the Applicant for the application. Two further non prejudicial interests were declared. Cllr Melly declared a non-prejudicial interest as she had joined Heworth Tennis Club which would potentially benefit from S106 funding. Cllr Douglas declared a non-prejudicial interest as the Ward Councillor for item 4b. There were no further declarations of interest.
To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Planning Committee held on 21 April 2021.
Resolved: That the minutes of the last meeting held on 21 April 2021 be approved and signed by the chair as a correct record.
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 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.
Erection of a 3 and 3.5 storey student accommodation block (providing 86 student rooms) following demolition of existing buildings [Fishergate Ward]
Members considered a major full application from KMRE Group (Church Fenton) Limited for the erection of three buildings to form 48 apartments with associated works and infrastructure following the demolition of existing building at Cherry Tree House 218 Fifth Avenue York YO31 0PN. It was highlighted that the item had previously been deferred.
The Head of Development Services gave a presentation on the application, which was followed by an update informing Members of the change of recommendation to approve the application subject to completion of S106 agreement. Members were updated on the contribution towards open space, loss of retail space and of a minor amendment to Condition 22. The additional information had been and the planning balance remained unchanged from the published report.
Following the presentation and update, Members asked Officers a number of questions to which they responded that:
· There was no national guidance on the size of communal space and this would vary from scheme to scheme.
· Outdoor amenity space could be conditioned.
· The change in amenity space was nominal.
· There was no reduction in the number of rooms.
· Student accommodation was included as contributing to housing need.
· There was no specification for student accommodation in the draft Local Plan.
· The developer could be asked to provide information on the collection and drop off of students. It was not anticipated that there was a need to change highways for this.
· An additional condition could be added regarding designing out crime, as requested by the police.
· The location of the cycle store was confirmed. There were 48 covered and secure cycle spaces.
· An obscure opaque covering could be requested as part of condition 17.
· The comparisons to the accommodation on Lawrence Street were explained.
· A variation to loading and unloading 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday could be added.
Gary Swarbrick, Agent for the Applicant, spoke in support of the application. He explained that the scheme was high quality purpose built student accommodation. He detailed the facilities in the apartments, which were all single occupancy, comparable with other similar developments in the city. He noted that there was no adopted policy regarding room sizes. He explained that there were robust management arrangements for students moving in and out and that there would be no deliveries around peak times and at school drop off times.
In response to questions from Members, Mr Swarbrick and colleagues (available to answer questions) explained that:
· They would be happy for no deliveries before 9am to be conditioned.
· They would look to undertake the demolition of the existing building during the school holidays and for large deliveries to be outside school hours.
· Regarding concern about the lack of communal space, as the accommodation was close to the city centre and university, students could socialise elsewhere and it was felt that the communal space was acceptable.
· They accepted the concerns of students being isolated and the effect of this on their mental health. They noted that there was no correlation between student ... view the full minutes text for item 31.
Erection of three buildings to form 48no. apartments with
associated works and infrastructure following the demolition of existing building [Heworth Ward]
Members considered a major full application from Cherry Tree Venture LLP for the erection of three buildings to form 48 apartments with associated works and infrastructure following the demolition of existing building at Cherry Tree House 218 Fifth Avenue York YO31 0PN.
The Head of Development Services gave a presentation on the applications and updated the Committee on a correction to paragraph 5.10 of the committee report noting that the site was wrongly identified and was not allocated in the Local Plan and the education allocation related to the adjoining presbytery and community centre. As a result the planning balance and recommendation remained unchanged from the published report.
Officers were asked and clarified that:
· The education allocation was staying the same.
· Access had been assessed by highways officers and it was acceptable to use the existing access points.
· The depth of the aisle was sufficient for vehicles turning.
· The landscaping to the rear of the site was being retained and the regarding planting trees on the verge, the verge was not within the line of the application site.
· There was no affordable housing and an offsite contribution would be made.
· The site had been granted vacant building credit and this was explained in the context of the NPPF and the application was policy compliant.
· The location of the cycle and bin storage and electric vehicle charging were explained.
· There was external amenity and good levels of light from the way the apartments were set out.
· It was not reasonable to condition proof of first time buyers buying the apartments.
· Housing officers were satisfied with the scheme and it was confirmed that there was a need for one two bedroom properties in the area.
· The retained landscaping would fall under the existing landscaping condition.
· There were not enough two bedroomed units for a S106 contribution to education.
Killian Gallagher, the Agent for the Applicant, spoke in support of the application. He explained that Cherry Tree House has been sold by the NHS as it was surplus to requirements. No offers had been received to retain the building for its use. He explained the intended buyers of the apartments, that the design was energy efficient and measures in place for energy efficiency, cycle and car parking (including electric vehicle charging). In answer to questions from the Committee he and the Architect (in attendance to answer questions) confirmed that:
· The Applicant in principle had no issue with putting in trees in the proviso that this could done technically. They would also be willing to make a contribution towards trees as part of the S106 agreement.
· It was intended that the development would begin as soon as possible.
· The scheme was in line with national policy and the development of brownfield sites. It was felt that £135,000 for an apartment in York within walking distance of the city centre was considered affordable.
· Purchasers would own a share of the freehold and would make their own decisions on this.
· The retention of properties ... view the full minutes text for item 31a