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. No further interests were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meetings of the Planning Committee held on 13 June 2019, 2 July 2019 (to follow) and 11 July 2019 (to follow).

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meetings held on 13 June 2019 and 2 July 2019 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 5:00pm on Wednesday 11 September 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 two registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme on general matters within the remit of the Planning Committee.

Michael Hammill spoke on the number of outstanding planning applications he had. He expressed concern regarding a decision to refuse solar panels as going against the council position on the climate change emergency. He questioned why so many of his applications had been refused and why.

Matthew Laverack spoke on the requirements regarding housing extensions. He displayed an example to Members and explained that the costs for housing extensions had increased and increased and would require the use of additional energy and resources.

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.

Construction of new and improved flood defence works, compensatory habitat creation and other associated works (Clifton Ings Barrier Bank Project) [Rawcliffe and Clifton Without Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application from the Environment Agency (EA) for the construction of new and improved flood defence works, compensatory habitat creation and other associated works (Clifton Ings Barrier Bank Project) at Clifton Ings Flood Alleviation Barrier to the south of Shipton Road, Rawcliffe, York.

The Development Management Officer outlined the scheme, explaining the existing embankment at Clifton Ings Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and access to the site. He demonstrated how the embankment would be extended and the location of the pumping station.

The Development Management Officer then provided an officer update in which Members were advised of:

·        The relocation of the sustrans route.

·        Clarification of amounts of SSI compensation (from the SSSI mitigation strategy).

·        A change to Condition 11 requiring the approval of the construction management details requiring measures to prevent dust affecting use of the Clifton Alliance Cricket Ground.

·        The Secretary of State request to remain informed of the Council’s determination of the application and may decide to call-in the application should members be minded to approve the scheme.

·        The receipt of further representations, to which an update was given.

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

In response to questions from the Committee, officers explained that:

·        There were multiple reasons why the EA had chosen the option in the application and there would still be damage to the SSSI if more of the re-profiling were on the “dry” side.

·        Taking into account climate change allowance to 2039, the modelling indicates that Clifton Ings would permanently increase the risk of flooding to the car park on Frederic Street and residential properties on Marygate.

·        The future flood defence  works on Marygate had not been approved but the scheme was in development along with a number of other schemes.

·        The EA had matrices of information they took into account when looking at options for flood alleviation.

·        Sheet piling had been used elsewhere in Yorkshire.

·        Mitigation for the SSSI was complicated. In respect of whether there were examples of this elsewhere, this had been done but there was a mixed picture and no scientific research.

·        The Friends of Rawcliffe Meadow had been working on the meadow for 25 years.

·        Rawcliffe Meadow was nationally important. An explanation of the habitat loss was given.

·        The SSSI mitigation work would require a specialist and detailed botanical monitoring would be needed.

·        The council had requested conditions for the SSSI mitigations work and there would be long term input in terms of monitoring. The council would need to work with the EA in terms of resourcing the monitoring the SSSI mitigation work.

·        With reference to the objections from Treemendous York, the EA had proposed a good level of mitigation for the loss of trees. The hedgerows along Clifton Park Hospital would be retained where possible but there was some uncertainty about this.

Dr Mick Phythian (York Natural Environment Trust CIO) spoke in objection to the application. He explained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20a

Construction of a temporary access junction and track off the A19 in association with flood alleviation works [Rawcliffe and Clifton Without Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from the Environment Agency for the construction of a temporary access junction and track off the A19 in association with flood alleviation works at  Clifton Ings Flood Alleviation Barrier to the South of Shipton Road, Rawcliffe, York.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved. On being put to the vote it was:

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

Reason:

                     i.        The proposed access to allow works at Clifton Ings will have an adverse impact on the Green Belt, open space and biodiversity.  The intention is for site restoration following the works and therefore the harm would not be permanent.  The role of the Friends of Rawcliffe in managing the area will be in jeopardy and their funding will be lost; however this cannot be avoided through the planning process (we cannot specify that a certain 3^rd party be required to manage the site).  Officers are content that planning conditions can secure a reasonable level of mitigation over time; the responsibility of which will lie with the applicants/developer; the EA.  Conditions are proposed to manage and minimise the effect on biodiversity during the works and for comprehensive long term management.  The site will be restored to its previous appearance.

                    ii.        Other options for the access route have legitimately been ruled out due to the scale and type of construction vehicles involved with the flood defence works.

                  iii.        With regards the impact on the Green Belt the NPPF states that very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.  With regards the natural environment the NPPF advises planning decisions should minimise impacts on, and providing net gains for, biodiversity.

                  iv.        The current barrier bank has issues with stability which significantly impacts on the operation and effectiveness of the flood defence, particularly for any consecutive flood events.  The existing standard of protection of the barrier bank is 2% AEP (2 in 100 year flood events).  The scheme would ensure that up to 2039 (taking into account climate change) the barrier would protect during the 1 in 100 year flood event / 1% AEP.  The proposals will reduce flood risk for 134 properties, and the local area, which will subsequently be defended against the 1 in 100 year flood (plus climate change). 

                   v.        To facilitate the flood defence works and secure adequate mitigation through conditions are deemed to constitute very special circumstances outweigh the identified harm; the temporary harm to habitats, the openness of the Green Belt and landscape character of the area, and its role as open space which would occur during the period of works.