Agenda and minutes
Venue: Remote Meeting
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. None were declared.
To approve and sign the minutes of the meetings of the Planning Committee held on 9 July 2020 and 8 October 2020.
Resolved: That the minutes of the meetings held on 9 July 2020 and 8 October 2020 be approved and then signed by the Chair as a correct record.
Webcasting of Remote Public Meetings
Please note that, subject to available resources, this remote public meeting will be webcast including any registered public speakers who have given their permission. The remote public meeting can be viewed live and on demand at www.york.gov.uk/webcasts.
During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates (www.york.gov.uk/COVIDDemocracy) for more information on meetings and decisions.
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.
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.
Erection of 60no. affordable homes with associated infrastructure, including access, public open space and landscaping [Rural West York Ward]
Members considered a Major Full Application from Karbon Homes & York Housing Association for the erection of 60 affordable homes with associated infrastructure, including access, public open space and landscaping at the land at Boroughbridge Road, west of Trenchard Road, York.
The Head of Development Services gave an update advising Members of an extra reason for the proposed refusal on the basis of the Applicants not agreeing to the required S106 obligation to education and of an adjustment to Green Belt reason for refusal, to include the Upper and Nether Poppleton Neighbourhood Plan. Members were also advised on the comments from the Council’s housing officers and it was confirmed that the additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and recommendation remained unchanged from the published report.
The Head of Development Services then gave a presentation on the application detailing the proposed layout, site plan, proposed elevations, 3D visuals, site plan in relation to the Green Belt and site allocation in the emerging local plan. In response to Member questions Officers confirmed that:
· The site was previously used as sports and recreation space and included an agricultural field.
· The civil service sports field no longer fitted the Green Belt objective and the Planning Inspectors had asked the Council to do more development on the Green Belt boundaries.
· When the Planning Inspector reached their conclusion on the planning appeal from Miller homes they found that the site had no Green Belt weighting to the application.
· The site would be windfall as it was not in the draft local plan allocation. The site allocations in the local plan were clarified and there were policies in the plan to address housing need.
Martin Wistow spoke in objection to the application as Chair of York Trenchard Residents Company Ltd, and as a resident directly affected by the application. He expressed concern regarding building in the Green Belt (as designated in the Emerging Local Plan) and that the designs had not addressed the concerns by residents. He noted that there was housing being built on the former British Sugar and Civil Service sites and that no Very Special Circumstances (vsc) were sufficient to allow the building of housing on Grade 2 agricultural Green Belt.
Simon Grundy (Carter Jonas, Agent for the Applicant) spoke in support of the application. He explained that the application was for a unique not for profit development for affordable housing. He explained that significant weight should be given to the very special circumstances. He challenged a number of points made in the report in not setting out how acute the housing supply had become. He set out the land supply position, suggesting that heavy weighting should be applied to this. He noted that the land beyond Trenchard Road was urban fringe and he considered that the failure to allocate the land in the local plan should not be considered as a reason for refusal. He was asked and explained to Members:
· Why the education contribution under S106 was refused. ... view the full minutes text for item 5.
Erection of 106 apartments including 36no. 1-bed, no. 68 2-bed and 2no. studios, flexible commercial floorspace (A1-A3 and B1 1458sqm gross), provision of new pedestrian and cycle bridge across the River Foss and creation of new public realm and pedestrian and cycle route at riverside north [Guildhall Ward]
Members considered a Major Full Application from City Of York Council for the erection of 106 apartments including 36no. 1-bed, no. 68 2-bed and 2no. studios, flexible commercial floorspace (A1-A3 and B1 1458sqm gross), provision of new pedestrian and cycle bridge across the River Foss and creation of new public realm and pedestrian and cycle route at riverside north at Castle Mills Car Park, Piccadilly, York.
The Head of Development Services provided the Committee with an update outlining further comments received from York Civic Trust (in support of the application), Historic England and from the Applicant. Members were advised of amended wording to Condition 45 and of a change to paragraph 6.4 of the Committee Report. Paragraph 6.4 stated that the approval was recommended subject to conditions and the undertaking of a legal agreement. This should however be subject to conditions and Grampian conditions. The Council was unable to enter into a legal agreement with itself therefore Grampian conditions were recommended to secure the require mitigation measures. It was confirmed that The additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and recommendation were unchanged from the published report.
The Development Services then gave a presentation on the application detailing the site location plan, elevations and
visualisations. The City of York Council (CYC) Conservation Architect responded to Member questions as follows:
· The new development would perpetuate looming over between Ryedale House and the Travelodge. If a storey was lost this would make a difference.
· There was a number of other views where the development would have a negative impact on heritage assets.
· There was a cumulative effect of the development, and it was the conservation area appraisal that used the word loom. Ryedale House was assessed as having a negative impact on the setting and his view was that the application would have a cumulative effect on that harm.
· Less storeys would mitigate but not remove the harm. However, without seeing the visualisation, he could not say what the harm would be.
Officers were then asked and clarified that:
· The design of the bridge had been had been agreed by officers and the design presented was considered the most appropriate.
· Visualisations had been used to show the views from the bridge and there were limited views.
· Historic England had concerns about the views and massing.
· There had been a dialogue between the case officer, conservation architect, and project officers on the application. All views had been taken into account for the planning balance and recommendation.
· The loss of the car park and Ryedale House would benefit the heritage asset and it was the Ryedale House was more harmful than the car park.
· The simple design for the bridge was considered the best design.
Chris Donegani spoke in objection to the application. He asked that the Committee consider the harm to the Piccadilly and Walmgate areas. He suggested that the design of the northern building was poor and expressed concern reagarding the narrowness of spaces and service arrangements.