Local democracy during coronavirus

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates for more information on meetings and decisions.

Agenda and minutes

Venue: The George Hudson Board Room - 1st Floor West Offices (F045). View directions

Contact: Angela Bielby  Democracy Officer

Webcast: video recording

Items
No. Item

Site Visits

Application

Reason

In attendance

Spark York Piccadilly

To allow Members to familiarise themselves with the site

Councillors Reid, Shepherd, Carr, Cullwick, Cuthbertson, Galvin, and Richardson

York Cemetery, Cemetery Road

To allow Members to familiarise themselves with the site

Councillors Reid, Shepherd, Carr, Cullwick, Cuthbertson, Galvin, and Richardson

 

52.

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.

 

 

Minutes:

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.

 

53.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 127 KB

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Planning Committee held on 19 December 2018.

Minutes:

Resolved:  That the minutes of the last meeting held on 19 December 2018 be approved and then signed by the chair as a correct record.

 

54.

Public Participation

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 23 January 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

 

 

 

Minutes:

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.

 

55.

Plans List

This item invites Members to determine the following planning applications:

Minutes:

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.

 

56.

Land Adjacent Sewage Works At Hessay Industrial Estate, New Road, Hessay, York [17/00670/FUL] pdf icon PDF 263 KB

Erection of asphalt plant with associated infrastructure [Rural West York Ward]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a full application from Anthea Tate for the erection of an asphalt plant with associated infrastructure on the land adjacent to Sewage Works at  Hessay Industrial Estate, New Road, Hessay, York. 

 

An officer update was given during which Members were advised of a correction to paragraph 4.11 of the report which should have stated that the Applicant’s case for very special circumstances will was examined in detail in paragraphs 4.12 – 4.19 and 4.36 – 4.39 of the report.

 

Members were informed of the receipt of two additional detailed further representations from the Applicant’s solicitor on 21 January 2019 and from the Applicant’s agent on 22 January 2019 which had been circulated to Members. The representations raised additional planning issues concerning sustainability, the case for Very Special Circumstances and the alternative sites for the asphalt plant.  Officers addressed the representations made on behalf of the applicant and confirmed that it was the view of officers that  presumption in favour of sustainable development is dis-applied by virtue footnote 6 to paragraph 11 to  the NPPF when the application of Green Belt policies in the NPPF provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. Officers advised Members of further local representations that had been received.

 

In response to questions from Members, officers clarified that:

Concerning the potential for the works to harm or result in removal of  the boundary hedge lying directly to the west of the A59/New Lane junction, the overall conclusion was that the landscape harm was not in reference to the hedge and this was not a reason for refusal of the application.

 

Roger Hildreth (neighbouring farmer to the site), spoke in objection to the application. He explained that his dairy farm was less than 130 metres from the industrial estate. He noted the effect of pollution on his cows and that if the plant was built this would result in the closure of his farm which would affect employment.

 

Steve Mills (local resident), spoke in objection to the application. Representing three generations of his family living in Hessay, he explained that the plant was an inappropriate development in the Green Belt and he noted that the plant would impact noise and the Green Belt, and transport, namely the junction of the A59/New Lane, Hessay.

 

Mark Barratt (Chair of Hessay Parish Council), spoke in objection to the application. He noted that Hessay was a tranquil village and the plant was the equivalent of a 6/7 storey building in the Green Belt. He noted that there had been no public meeting with the applicant and he outlined residents concerns regarding safety, health, the effect on wildlife and the impact on residents’ quality of life. He suggested that the access to the site could not be delivered and the approval of the application would set a precedent for Green Belt applications.

 

Jeremy Williams (Agent on behalf of a number of residents of Hessay and Hessay  Parish Council), spoke in objection to the application. He explained that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

57.

York Cemetery Trust Kiosk, York Cemetery, Cemetery Road [18/01620/FUL] pdf icon PDF 238 KB

Single storey extension and alterations to building to form volunteers centre with associated facilities and tool store (resubmission) [Fishergate Ward] [Site Visit]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a full application from Dr Richard Keesing for a single storey extension and alterations to building to form volunteers centre with associated facilities and tool store (resubmission) at York Cemetery Trust Kiosk, York Cemetery.

 

An officer update was given. This included clarification on the wording of paragraph 5.5 of the officer’s report and an update on additional representation received from the Flood Risk Management Team (FRMT). Following the advice of the FRMT it was recommended that an additional condition concerning drainage was imposed on any grant of planning approval.

 

Dr Richard Keesing (Applicant and Chair of Trustees at York Cemetery Trust), spoke in support of the application. He outlined the restoration work that had been undertaken at the cemetery and explained that the role of volunteers was essential to the running of the cemetery. He noted that there were no adequate facilities for volunteers and educational groups. This would be addressed by the proposal for a volunteers centre.

 

 

Clive Dawson, (Chairman of the Friends of York Cemetery), spoke in support of the application. He explained that there were up to 70 volunteers at the cemetery, who were missing a place to meet. He listed a number of projects with local schools, noting the need for an educational facility. He explained how the visitors centre would be used and would be of benefit to volunteers and visitors to the cemetery.

 

The architect for the application was in attendance to answer questions and in response to a question from Members clarified the location of roof lights on the building plans.

 

Following debate during which a number of Members commended the work of volunteers at the cemetery, it was:

 

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and following additional condition and informative:

 

Additional condition

9.      No development shall take place until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any balancing works and off site works, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

Informative

The developer’s attention is drawn to Requirement H3 of the Building Regulations 2000 with regards to hierarchy for surface water dispersal and the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuD’s). Consideration should be given to discharge to soakaway, infiltration system and watercourse in that priority order. Surface water discharge to the existing public sewer network must only be as a last resort therefore sufficient evidence should be provided i.e. witnessed by CYC infiltration tests to BRE Digest 365 to discount the use of SuD’s.

 

If the proposed method of surface water disposal is via soakaways, these should be shown to work through an appropriate assessment carried out under BRE Digest 365, (preferably carried out in winter), to prove that the ground has sufficient capacity to except surface water discharge, and to prevent flooding of the surrounding land and the site itself. Testing should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

58.

York Cemetery Trust Kiosk, York Cemetery, Cemetery Road [18/01621/LBC] pdf icon PDF 93 KB

Single storey extension and alterations to building to form volunteers centre with associated facilities and tool store (resubmission) [Fishergate Ward] [Site Visit]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered an application for Listed Building Consent

from Dr. Richard Keesing for a Single storey extension and alterations to building to form volunteers centre with associated facilities and tool store (resubmission) at York Cemetery Trust Kiosk, York Cemetery.

 

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

 

Reason:

             i.        York Cemetery is a Grade II* listed Historic Park and Garden and contains a number of individually listed buildings, most notably the Lodge (Grade II).When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. 

 

                 ii.            It is considered that the installation of the gates between the Lodge and the existing ‘potting shed’ would not harm the Cemetery Lodge, in terms of impact upon fabric, subject to further details provided by condition nor would it harm its setting.

59.

Spark York Piccadilly York YO1 9PB [18/02268/FUL] pdf icon PDF 120 KB

Erection of a temporary stretch tent canopy over existing shipping containers (retrospective) [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a full application from Samuel Leach for the erection of a temporary stretch tent canopy over existing shipping containers (retrospective) at Spark York, Piccadilly, York.

 

An officer update was given in which Members were advised that condition 3 would be applied from when the canopy was erected the following September.

 

In response to Member questions it was confirmed that:

·        Each planning application would be looked at on it’s own merits.

·        The health and safety assessment of the canopy would have been undertaken by building control.

·        If refused, the timescale for appeal was 6 months from the decision notice.

·        The period for the installation of the canopy was conditioned in line with the application.

 

Following debate in which Members expressed a number of different views it was:

 

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

 

Reason:

                     i.        The application is to allow the canopy during temporary periods, between September and May the following year. 

 

                    ii.        In principle allowing the structure subject to a condition requiring a temporary installation only would not conflict with National Planning Policy Guidance on the use of planning conditions which states that "a temporary planning permission may be appropriate on vacant land/buildings to enable use for a temporary period prior to any longer term regeneration plans coming forward (a meanwhile use) or more generally to encourage empty property to be brought back into use. This can benefit an area by increasing activity".

 

                   iii.        The addition of the canopy causes a low level of harm to the character and appearance of the Central Historic Core Conservation Area.  The applicants consider the canopy is necessary for Spark to be viable during its tenure.  It is accepted that the Spark development is desirable on economic grounds, both in terms of the business it facilitates and also assisting with the vitality, viability and regeneration of Piccadilly. 

 

                          iv.            To grant permission, subject to conditions, on times the canopy can be in-situ and regarding the finish above the entrance, would bring about a public benefit that would outweigh the low level of harm to the conservation area and prevent any harm to the significance of the grade II listed Red Lion or to St Deny’s Church.  As a consequence the proposals would be acceptable when assessed against the NPPF and even when considerable weight and importance is given to this harm.

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page