Agenda and minutes
Venue: The George Hudson Board Room - 1st Floor West Offices (F045). View directions
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 Ayre declared a personal non prejudicial interest as a member of the Civil Service Sports Club. No further interests were declared.
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 Monday 1 July 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 no registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme on general matters within the remit of the Planning Committee.
Residential development of 266 dwellings with associated access, public open space, landscaping and infrastructure [Rural West York Ward]
This matter is reported to Planning Committee following the recent submission of an appeal against non-determination to the Secretary of State by the applicant. Members are requested to consider this report at a special meeting due to the urgency of the matter, as the appeal is to be determined by a Planning Inspector by way of a public inquiry that will follow an accelerated timetable. As part of the appeal process the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is required to submit evidence in explanation of its assessment of the application. Whilst jurisdiction to determine the development proposal now rests with the Secretary of State and not the Council, it is necessary for the LPA to determine how it would have been minded to determine the application so that Officers can present that case for the LPA at the Inquiry.
Members considered a major full application from Miller Homes Ltd for a residential development of 266 dwellings with associated access, public open space, landscaping and infrastructure at the Former Civil Service Club and agricultural land to the north, Boroughbridge Road, York.
The Senior Solicitor gave a legal update in which she explained that the matter was reported to Planning Committee following the submission of an appeal against non-determination to the Secretary of State by the applicant. Members were requested to consider the report at the meeting due to the urgency of the matter, as the appeal was to be determined by a Planning Inspector by way of a public inquiry that would follow an accelerated timetable. As part of the appeal process the Local Planning Authority (LPA) was required to submit evidence in explanation of its assessment of the application. Whilst jurisdiction to determine the development proposal rested with the Secretary of State and not the Council, it was necessary for the LPA to determine how it would have been minded to determine the application in order for Officers to present that case for the LPA at the Inquiry. It was noted that the application site was in the Green Belt and that time extension expired on 1 March 2019.
The Development Management Officer outlined the scheme noting the layout, housing mix, access, landscaping and surrounding land uses. An update was given, explaining the change in the content of the Section 106 agreement, additional conditions, details of further representations and comments from a neighbour. In response to a Member question he explained that colleagues in Education had advised that Manor CE Academy intended to extend the school by 36 places and the triangle of land opposite the school had been allocated for the school expansion.
In answer to questions raised by Members, the Assistant Director for Planning and Public Protection clarified that:
· In terms of the City of York Council (CYC) position, there had been multiple consultations and the preferred position was outlined in the Local Plan that had been submitted.
· The clear advice from two Planning Barristers was that this was a modest site in terms of scale for the city and it would not undermine the process in terms of maturity.
· Concerning the age of the assessment data and whether they remained relevant (for example the Ecology assessment being carried out in 2016), Officers felt there was sufficient information from the Applicant and CYC itself to inform the Committee’s decision. With reference to the 2016 Ecology survey, the Ecology Officer explained that surveys were taken on a case by case basis and she noted the reasons for this. She added that during a site visit the previous week, the site was overgrown, however there was no substantive information to affect the decision. Highways Officers clarified that the highways assessments, based on 2016 surveys (which included the British Sugar site) were still considered to be valid.
Officers answered further questions raised by Members, noting that:
· There were two vehicle ... view the full minutes text for item 11.