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

31.

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. None were declared.

32.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 93 KB

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Planning Committee held on 14 November 2019.

Minutes:

Resolved:  That the minutes of the last meeting held on 14 November 2019 be approved and then signed by the chair as a correct record.

33.

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 15 January 2020. 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.

 

34.

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.

 

35.

Frederick House, Fulford Road, York YO10 4EG [19/00603/FULM] pdf icon PDF 494 KB

Erection of 6 purpose-built 4 storey student accommodation buildings (providing 368 bedrooms), associated change of use of and alterations to existing 'Guard House' building to multi-amenity use associated with the accommodation, construction of energy/plant facility, car and cycle parking, refuse/recycling storage and landscaping (re-submission of withdrawn application 18/02797/FULM) [Fishergate Ward]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a major full application from Summix FHY Developments Ltd for the erection of  six purpose-built 4 storey student accommodation buildings (providing 368 bedrooms), associated change of use of and alterations to the existing 'Guard House' building to a multi-amenity use associated with the accommodation, construction of energy/plant facility, car and cycle parking, refuse/recycling storage and landscaping (re-submission of withdrawn application 18/02797/FULM) at Frederick House Fulford Road, York.

 

An officer update was given under which Members were updated on the objections have been received from local residents following re-consultation. There had also been a consultation response from Highways, who confirmed that that the scheme has been further reviewed and drawings revised to increased cycle parking. The Highways letter also stated that the applicant had agreed to detailed design of the improvements to the pedestrian refuge on Fulford Road and the extension of the shared use path to the existing pelican crossing north of Kilburn road to be incorporated into the planning conditions and/or S106 requirements. Members were also advised of an additional condition relating to a parking survey. It was noted that the additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and the recommendation are unchanged from the published report. 

 

In response to Member questions, officers explained that:

·        The success of the design would be in the details and quality of the construction and landscaping.

·        The height of the buildings in relation to neighbouring buildings, including those on Kilburn Road.

·        The shared pedestrian footpath had been extended to the north of the site.

·        The applicant had offered a sample bus pass to students for free when they arrived.

·        The transport team had retracted their objection to the cycle parking.

·        The 2018 travel survey results did not give an indication of student car ownership.

·        The applicant had used arael photography to determine to level of parking on side streets.

·        There was some provision for off street parking on side streets and this needed to be considered with developers.

·        The highways department had retracted their objection.

 

Bryn Bircher, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. He explained where he lived and explained that the buildings were too big and too close to residential buildings, blocking their light. He noted that the proposed building was higher than the current building and was much closer to the boundary. He requested that the application be deferred.

 

Angela Johnson, Chair of the Low Moor Allotments Association and a local resident, spoke in objection to the application in regard to the effect on the allotments. She thanked the applicant for taking the cycle lane away from the allotments. She expressed concern about the gate at the Walmgate Stray end of the cycle lane. She noted that the allotment plot holders had not received notification of the application and added that all stakeholders affected should have been consulted. In response to Member questions she confirmed that it would be useful to discuss the gate and additional barriers for accessibility with the applicant.

 

Stuart Black,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

36.

Naburn Lock, York Road, Naburn, York, YO19 4RU [18/02552/FUL] pdf icon PDF 189 KB

Hydroelectric generation plant and associated infrastructure including turbine house, hydraulic channels, intake screen, crane pad and electrical substation [Wheldrake Ward] [Site Visit]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a full application from Ewan Campbell-Lendrum for a hydroelectric generation plant and associated infrastructure including turbine house, hydraulic channels, intake screen, crane pad and electrical substation at Naburn Lock, York Road, Naburn, York.

 

Officers updated Members on the application, noting additions to condition 2 drawing numbers, a minor report spelling clarification and the applicant’s response to the objections raised. It was noted that the additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and the recommendation are unchanged from the published report. 

 

Officers were asked and noted that:

·        The Canal and River Trust was the land owner.

·        There was no direct evidence of otters in the area.

·        The grid connection was a matter of discussion between the applicant and grid provider.

·        The fish harbour allows the fish to go upstream and there was already a fish pass on the weir. The design in the application was an improved design.

·        The timescale for the hydroelectric generation plant could not be shortened through the planning process.

·        The agent for the applicant stated that the size of the hydroelectric generation plant was optimal.

 

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the following amendment to condition 2:

 

Condition 2

Add the following drawing numbers:

1.           2350005 – Development Boundary

2.           ARBTECH TPP01 Rev A – Tree Protection Plan

 

Reason:

 

                     i.        Naburn Lock is located on the River Ouse in a rural location to the south of Naburn village. The construction of the locks (in 1757 and 1888) has created an island upon which is located the workshops, stores and offices associated with the operation and maintenance of the lock. Directly to the east lies the Naburn Banqueting House, a Grade II listed building, together with the lock keeper's house. The locks themselves are separately listed at Grade II. Planning permission is sought for construction of a hydroelectric generating plant together with associated infrastructure on the western bank of the island.

 

                    ii.        The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved other than in very special circumstances. However, it is considered that the impact of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt would be mitigated by the characteristics of the locality and its setting adjacent to Naburn Lock. Whilst the proposal represents a relatively small scale project, Central Government guidance in the NPFF makes it clear that local planning authorities should recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. With this in mind, and bearing in mind the nature of the location and characteristics of the application site, it is considered that very special circumstances exist that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.  No other harms have been identified arising from the proposal.

 

    iii.            In terms of the previously identified significant concerns relating to harm to local habitat and biodiversity the proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

37.

Vacant site, Eboracum Way, York, YO31 7RE [19/01467/FULM] pdf icon PDF 244 KB

Erection of 5 storey apartment building with basement comprising 62 residential units (Use Class C3), associated car parking and landscaping works [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a major full application from Tiger Developments Limited for the erection of a 5 storey apartment building with basement comprising 62 residential units (Use Class C3), associated car parking and landscaping works at the vacant site, Eboracum Way, York, YO31 7RE.

 

An officer update was given under which the address of the application was clarified and Members were informed that revised plans had been issued to clarify the variable scale of the building on the opposite side of Layerthorpe. There was also an extra condition concerning the restricted use of flat roof areas, an amendment to the condition 10 (and informative), and to conditions 11 and 12. The additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and the recommendation was unchanged from the published report. 

 

Following the update, Officers were asked and confirmed:

·        The application was policy compliant in terms of sustainable construction.

·        That a request had been made to officers in terms of the open space associated with the application.

·        The distances between the buildings and neighbouring properties.

·        The reasons for affordable housing being on the ground floor.

·        That the street lighting for 119 and 121 Layerthorpe was not within the applicant’s control.

·        That the lighting on site could be conditioned as part of the landscaping scheme.

·        The fifth floor component was set within the footprint of the building.

·        How the scheme would fit in with surrounding buildings.

·        That regarding early years provision, officers were content that there was capacity within existing places in early years settings.

·        The amount of car parking was based on location and connectivity.

·        The daylight and sunlight assessments were undertaken via the impact on windows and not gardens. It was explained why these assessments came out as acceptable.

·        There were national space elements for building densities if there was an adopted Local Plan. As there was no Local Plan, officers were content that the floorplan was of a reasonable size.

 

Margaret Binnington, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application on the basis of the height and size of the development, and that it was out of place in the local area. She referred to the council home delivery plan and asked why there was not more social housing and less private development in order to support the local community.

 

In response to Member questions, Ms Binnington explained that:

·        She had not been consulted on the application.

·        Concerning the access and egress of construction traffic she questioned where the builders would park and where construction equipment would be stored.

 

Rupert Litherland, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He explained that consultation on the scheme finished on 17 July and there had been three letters in objection and three in support. He explained that the buildings met national housing standards and 20% affordable housing, and promoted sustainable travel through the 66 cycle spaces and 45 car parking spaces. He added that the building used sustainable technology and that the lighting was compliant with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

38.

Smith And Nephew Plc Research Centre, Innovation Way, Heslington, York YO10 5DF [19/02011/FULM] pdf icon PDF 253 KB

Change of use of former research centre (Use Class B1) to non-residential institution for academic use (Use Class D1) with associated external works [Hull Road Ward] [Site Visit]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a major full application from the University of York for the change of use of a former research centre (Use Class B1) to non-residential institution for academic use (Use Class D1) with associated external works at the Smith and Nephew Plc Research Centre, Innovation Way, Heslington, York.

 

Members were provided with an officer update. It was reported that following the Committee Site Visit, there had been further discussion about landscaping along the site frontage with Church Lane, resulting in an indicative landscape plan being submitted. Whilst this was indicative, it showed a commitment by the applicant to reduce the amount of trees being removed along the frontage and replacement planting. Therefore it was recommended that there be amendments to conditions 2 and 4 to reflect this. The additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and the recommendation were unchanged from the published report. 

 

Officers were asked and clarified that:

·        Landscaping could be conditioned for the lifetime of the development.

·        The university would need to be asked about becoming involved in the planting of replacement trees.

·        The use of the BREEAM level of very good was acceptable at the site.

·        The applicant had been looking at connectivity onto the site.

·        Tree T26, a false acacia, was not retained in the application.

·        The car parking proposed was an over provision and would benefit overall parking at the university.

·        The car park on the site was currently gated off and was not in use.

 

Graham Holbeck and Janet O’Neill, the agents for the applicant spoke in support of the application. They explained the retention and replacement of trees. With regard to BREEAM they explained that BREEAM very good was to be used and that there would be an internal fit out of the building. The location of cycle routes into the site was explained and it was clarified that the car parking outside the building was for general use by the university on campus west. It was noted that the university was revisiting its travel plan.

 

Members raised a number of questions. Mr Holbeck and Ms O’Neill confirmed that:

·        The university would be willing to enter a dialogue with the council regarding cycle provision.

·        The replacement of trees could be conditioned.

·        Pedestrian and cycle access could be looked at as part of the transport plan.

·        Regarding the change of the use of the building, the history of the occupancy of the building was explained.

·        They could check whether the extractor fans on the building could be removed.

·        The pedestrian and cycle access to the site was explained.

 

It was then:

 

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report, additional condition relating to planting and amendments to conditions 2 and 4:

 

Additional condition

That the planting on the site be retained for perpetuity.

 

Condition 2 (Plans)

Amended to remove reference to the landscape proposals and tree removal drawings

 

Condition 4 (Landscaping)

Amended to require a revised landscaping scheme to be submitted for approval as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page