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.

Councillor Mercer advised that she had registered to speak on plans item 4a (The Stables, Elvington Lane, Elvington) as Ward Member and that, after speaking, she would withdraw from the debate and vote on this item.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Planning Committee held 16 February 2017.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the last meeting held on 16 February 2017 be approved and then signed by the chair as a correct record.

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 5pm on Wednesday 22 March 2017. 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 Officers for the meeting, on the details at the foot of this agenda.

Filming or Recording Meetings

Please note this meeting will be filmed and webcast and that includes 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, i.e. tweeting.  Anyone wishing to film, record or take photos at any public meeting should contact the Democracy Officers (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.

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.

Continued use of land as Travelling Showperson's site for one family granted on appeal on 14th June 2011. [Wheldrake Ward]

Members considered a full application by Mr and Mrs J Peel for the continued use of land as a Travelling Showperson’s site for one family granted on appeal on 14^th June 2011.

Officers advised that a letter of support from the Junior Vice President of the Showman’s Guild for Great Britain had been forwarded to them by the applicant. This was circulated to Members and attendees at the meeting.

Representations were heard from six people in relation to the application.

Ken Guest, an adjacent neighbour, addressed the committee in objection to the application. He advised that the officer recommendation ignored planning policy and previous decisions taken by the council and that approving this application would be a breach of planning inspectorate 2011 ruling which granted a maximum 5 years temporary term and would set a precedent for other applications throughout the UK.

Martin Moorhouse, a neighbour of the applicant, then spoke, also in objection. He advised that the inspector had granted a temporary term of 5 years, in order to allow for the potential for alternative sites to be brought forward through the local plan process. He stated that, by next year, none of children would  be of primary age, therefore the need for the children to attend the village school would no longer be a reason for needing to stay on the site.

Emma Peel, the applicant, addressed the committee in support of the application. She explained that her family were travelling showmen who had resided there since 2011 and travelled to many events on a regular basis. Her two 11 year old daughters had places at Fulford School from September 2017 and her 2 year old son currently attended the local nursery. She explained that, when permission was granted on appeal in 2011, the council had hoped to have allocated a site to show people through the local plan process but this has been delayed. A 3 year extension would prevent them becoming homeless and would meet the needs of the local plan.

Julia Garnham, a neighbour and friend of the Peel family, also spoke in support of the applicant’s case. She told members that since the family had moved onto the site they had integrated well into village and school life and the family was well liked in the village. She advised members that the site was kept tidy and only their own equipment was stored there advising that they didn’t cause any harm or impact negatively on the countryside.

Ian Bailey, Chair of Elvington Parish Council, addressed the committee in objection. He advised that the parish council was rigorously proactive about protecting the greenbelt around the village and both the council and planning inspector had agreed that this was inappropriate development in the Green Belt. He stated that the council had had enough time to find an alternative site for show people and the site should now be returned to the Green Belt.

Councillor Mercer, Ward Councillor for Wheldrake also addressed the committee.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

Demolition of existing buildings, use of  land to car storage facility and erection of office building. [Rawcliffe and Clifton Without Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a  major outline application by Mr Richard Baines for the demolition of existing buildings, use of land as a car storage facility and erection of an office building.

Officers advised that the area shown on the submitted plan D138.L.10/E as being used for the storage of cars was for illustrative purposes only.  It showed 1000 of the 2000 cars for which consent was being sought.  They clarified that the full area to be used for the storage of cars was as shown shaded light green.  The car parking area immediately to the front and side of the proposed office building was for staff.

They advised that three further planning conditions were recommended to cover: the parameters of the office building and security gatehouse; details of Surfacing; and pasture to be retained.

Officers advised that the applicant had asked that certain conditions be amended in order to accommodate the likelihood of the development being carried out in phases.  In particular that the use of the site for car storage could start before the construction/occupation of the office building.  In response officers recommended that amendments be made to the following conditions: cycle parking; parking and manoeuvring; travel plan; landscape scheme; street furniture details; and lighting impact assessment.

Eamonn Keogh, the applicant’s agent, addressed the committee in support of the application. He advised that very special circumstances had been accepted by officer and stated that:

·        no other suitable sites were available in the urban area or elsewhere

·        the scheme would include extensive new planting and the parking area would be divided by planting new hedgerows. The strip along the curtilege of the site would be retained.

·        sustainable travel to and from the site by staff would encouraged. Autohorn was in discussion with Roko about the use of footpath so they could link in with existing path.

Richard Baines, the applicant, then spoke in support. He advised that:

·        he had started business with 9 cars and 3 staff and were an unknown brand. They now had a fleet of 2000 cars, 100 staff and considered themselves one of best employers in city, recently voted best socially responsible employer.

·        The business needed space to grow and long term security. They were currently located in York Central which was to be developed. There was no space in York centre to expand and this was the only suitable available site.

·        The proposals would tidy up and improve the site.

When asked by Members, the applicant agreed to consider keeping the one remaining  World War II blast dispersal shelter earth bunding  at the site.   

In response to questions from Members, the applicant and agent provided the following information:

·        Some of key customers are based at Clifton Moor. This site is conveniently located for them.

·        At the current site, cars have to be offloaded outside the city centre and driven in.  Moving to this site would mean that car transporters could deliver cars directly to the site and avoid the need for transporters to come into the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

Siting of 3 no. grain silos to be converted for use as holiday accommodation. [Wheldrake Ward]

Members considered a full application by Mr Raley for the siting of three grain silos to be converted for use as holiday accommodation.

Sam Harrison, the applicant’s agent, addressed the committee in support of the application. He advised Members that there had been no objections from statutory consultees or members of the public. He expressed disappointment that they had not been made aware that there were issues at pre-application stage and questioned what officers would consider to be very special circumstances. He referred to other applications which had been approved in the Green Belt and stressed the need for small scale farms to be able to diversify.

Some Members acknowledged that farmers were being encouraged to diversify and it was suggested that the clear need for farmers to look at diversification could be considered as very special circumstances. They noted that the proposed new buildings would be located adjacent to agricultural buildings and from a distance could be taken to be agricultural silos and felt that this was acceptable.

Other Members raised concern over the use of the proposed buildings and stressed the need to consider the ancillary uses around them including use of outside space and associated paraphernalia. They expressed the view that very special circumstances had not been demonstrated by the applicant.

Officers advised that, should Members be minded to approve this application, their recommended conditions would include: methodology to deal with unexpected contamination; an electrical recharge point; cycle and vehicle parking; landscaping; tree retention; lighting scheme; external finishes; holiday occupancy; removal and reinstatement; and application plans.

Resolved   That the application be approved subject to delegated authority being granted  to allow officers to  formulate the wording of conditions as outlined above.

Reason:     Notwithstanding the substantial weight being given to the identified harm to the Green Belt and the other harm  to its openness,   the proposal  is considered necessary as a means of farm diversification to offset the impact of the declining farm income , which  amounts to very special circumstances to clearly outweigh that harm,  and justify planning permission being granted.

Change of use of agricultural buildings to livery stables and caravan touring pitches including refreshment and toilet block. [Strensall Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr Andrew Thompson for the change of use of agricultural buildings to livery stables and caravan touring pitches including refreshment and toilet block.

Officers advised that, in response to comments in the report on the trading position of the farm, they had received an email from the applicant’s accountant to advise that the Mr Thompson, the applicant, had made trading losses in the last financial year.  

Eamonn Keogh, the applicant’s agent addressed the committee and provided the following information:

·        no objections had been received from members of the public or statutory or internal consultees.

·        the  scheme would include the demolition of a significant number of buildings, including some silos, leading to a net loss of permanent built floorspace and improvement to openness of Green Belt. 

·        a comprehensive visual impact assessment had been submitted. The scheme would have a positive impact on the rural landscape due to proposed reduction in built form and enhancement of landscape features, introduction of new hedgerows and trees and general landscaping around proposed development site.

·        caravan pitches would sit within the footprint of existing building and be seen against backdrop of retained buildings

·        very special circumstances to overcome inappropriateness of Green Belt have been set out in the report.

Members discussed whether additional landscaping was required noting there was already some screening to the north of the site but that views of the site would be more prominent from New Earswick to the south so any additional landscaping should be concentrated here.

Councillor Doughty moved, and Councillor Looker seconded, a motion to approve the application. Members accepted the need for diversification and were comfortable with the equestrian proposals, and some members expressed support for the scheme on the basis of diversification. They accepted that there was a need to provide suitable sites for visitors to York with caravans and noted the benefits to the environment through the reduction of the built up area and increase in openness to the greenbelt.

However there was concern that very special circumstances had not been demonstrated. They did not feel that evidence had been put forward to support the need for more caravan pitches. Concern was also raised in relation to slow moving vehicles at a point in the road where the speed limit changed from derestricted to 30mph. They did not feel that the need to diversify could in itself be considered as very special circumstances, but that individual cases for diversification should be made on financial grounds.

After further debate, members accepted the reasons put forward by the applicant but felt that these needed to be strengthened to include financial reasons to be able to be considered as very special circumstances. Councillor Galvin moved, and Councillor Ayre seconded, a motion to defer the application in order that the applicant be given additional time to put together stronger financial reasons to support very special circumstances.

Resolved:  That the application be deferred for consideration at a future meeting.

Reason:     In order that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

Erection of five storey hotel (use class C1) [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application by Vastint Hospitality for the erection of a five storey hotel (use class C1)

Officers advised that they had received a letter of objection from one of the neighbours who had attended the site visit but who was unable to attend today’s meeting. Their main objections related to the scale of the proposed buildings and concerns around highway safety and traffic. This letter had been circulated to members in advance of the meeting.

Officers also advised that they had now received the Heads of Terms for the Sec 106 agreement from the applicant.

Officer recommended the following amendments to existing proposed conditions:

·        Than an informative be added to Condition 4 (construction management) to set out more detail and an explanation on what would be expected from the developer in respect of construction management.

·        Rewording of Condition 21 (plant and machinery) to give more  clarity to the noise levels that the developer would be expected to meet.

Mr Andrew Finch, a resident of Hungate, addressed the committee in objection to the application. He raised concerns around the use of the land for a hotel, which he stated would lead to noise overnight and disruption which was currently not an issue with existing office use nearby. He also raised concerns of the aesthetics of the proposed building from the south/south east, and the need to maintain a visual corridor; and highway access especially in relation to  East to West traffic,  where there would be  potential  pedestrian/cyclist conflicts with vehicles loading and unloading.

Janet O’Neil, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application. She referred to the impact of the building on both Hungate , the Hiscox office and neighbours. She advised that guests of the 3* hotel would arrive either by taxi or would walk from the station and stated that it was not anticipated that there would be a large number of coaches dropping off at/collecting from the hotel.

Members acknowledged residents’ concerns regarding traffic at the back of the proposed development but noted that no objections had been raised by Highways. It was suggested that the solid hoarding could be replaced by mesh fence during construction to improve sight lines to reduce impact of traffic. Concern was raised again with regard to the impact of the proposed building on the setting of the grade 2 * listed public house, but acknowledged that the site had been identified for development and outline permission had been granted and it had always been clear that there would be 4-5 storey building overshadowing the public house. Members commented that it was an innovative design and felt there were no reasons to refuse the application.

Resolved:  That on completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure a contribution of £18,000 towards public realm improvements at Peasholme Green, DELEGATED authority be given to the Assistant Director, Planning and Public Protection to APPROVE the application subject to the conditions listed in the report and the amendments to conditions 4  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

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 2016, 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 considered a report which informed them of the Council’s performance in relation to appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate between 1 October and 31 December 2016and provided them with a summary of the salient points from appeals determined in that period.

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.