Agenda and draft 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. There were no further declarations of interest.
Cllr Kilbane noted that as a point of order, as an Cllr Widdowson (as a member of the Executive) may have an interest in agenda item 4a [St Georges Field Car Park, Tower Street, York [19/02063/FULM]. The Senior Solicitor advised that being on the Executive was not a conflict of interest. Cllr Warters pointed to the Executive making a commitment to the scheme to which the Senior Solicitor advised that this in itself was not a conflict of interest and it was for members of the Executive themselves to decide whether this was a conflict of interest.
To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Planning Committee held on 12 November 2020.
Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2020 be approved subject to;
· the addition of ‘objected’ in the second sentence of Cllr Doughty’s public speaking,
· The Chair being amended to Cllr Cullwick at the end of the minutes,
and then signed by the chair as a correct record at a later date.
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 5 level multi-storey car park with canopy to roof to provide 372 no. car parking spaces, demolition of public toilet, revised highway access and associated landscaping works [Fishergate Ward]
Members considered a Major Full Application from Mr Andy Kerr for the Erection of 5 level multi-storey car park with canopy to roof to provide 372 no. car parking spaces, demolition of public toilet, revised highway access and associated landscaping works at St Georges Field Car Park, Tower Street, York. This application was deferred from the committee meeting held on 19 November 2020.
As a point of clarification, Members were advised that the applicant’s response to the justification of parking need as detailed in the second paragraph under section 1 of the committee report should not have been underlined and was done so in error and was not a point of emphasis. With regarding to the implied 1% council tax rise within that paragraph, Members were advised that this was not a planning consideration and should not be taken into account in their determination of the application. A number of Member expressed concern about this, as well as the comments submitted by York Civic Trust concerning the demand for parking provision and asked whether the application should be deferred for those reasons. They were advised that these should be disregarded and should not be given weight during debate.
The Head of Development Services provided an update to the Committee noting the amendment to text of Condition 34 (security condition), and additional comments further to review of proposed security Condition 34 from North Yorkshire Police (NYP) - Secured by Design Officer. They expressed concern about the lack of physical protection for the structure, and considered that 24/7 staffing would be required. Whilst recognising that periodic flooding was is a constraint in needing the ground floor to be left open sided and external stairway to a viewing platform, NYP did not support this due to concerns about potential antisocial and criminal behaviour.
York Civic Trust had also provided further comments further to the justification for parking provision provided by the applicant on 18 December 2020 in which it supported ambitions of the masterplan, and commented on the parking need and access and design. It suggested that a review of supply and demand for parking provision should be carried out as part of the Local Transport Plan.
It was confirmed that the additional information has been assessed and the planning balance and recommendation are unchanged from the published report.
The Head of Development Services gave a presentation on the application detailing the site location plan, proposed elevations, proposed sections, proposed solar canopy, vehicular access plan, tree constraints plan and visualisations. Following the presentation, officers were asked and clarified:
The comments of the Design and Sustainability Manager
How pedestrians route to the super crossing to Skeldergate Bridge (which was conditioned under Condition 16)
The comments of the North Yorkshire Police (NYP) - Secured by Design Officer regarding the car park being unsafe in the planning balance. There was a need to take into account the mitigation measures (for example the condition regarding security) in the planning balance. [At this point the Senior Solicitor undertook ... view the full minutes text for item 10a
Erection of a temporary, single-storey, office building for a period of five years and recladding of an existing barn to form an attached entrance pavilion. The temporary office building would measure approximately 60m x 12.3m and would be used in connection with the applicant’s phased occupation of 10 hectares of predominantly grazing land following the company’s relocation from elsewhere in York, mainly York Central which is now a major redevelopment site [Rawcliffe And Clifton Without Ward]
Members considered a Full Application from Autohorn Fleet Services for the erection of a temporary office for a period of five years and re-cladding of existing barn at Whitehall Grange, Wigginton Road, York, YO32 2RJ.
The Head of Development Services gave an update. She noted that the public consultation period did not expire until 14 January 2021 and there had been no responses received at that time. As a result the recommendation was unchanged from the published report. With the consultation date closing after the meeting date it was proposed that final approval be delegated to officers subject to there being no material considerations included in the consultation responses.
She then gave a presentation on the application detailing the site location plan, block plan, the site at present, and proposed buildings and elevations.
Paul Butler (Agent for the Applicant) spoke in support of the application. He noted that the application site already benefitted from planning permission and that the application was for a temporary building, very special circumstances (VSC) existed, and as York Central progressed, Autohorn needed to relocate. He outlined the reasons for the need for the temporary building, including reasons due to the pandemic.
He was asked and explained that the company employed up to 400 people and that the approval of the application would allow the facilitation of the long term plan. He was asked and confirmed that the company’s present location was on Leeman Road.
Cllr Warters then moved and Cllr Daubeney seconded approval of the application subject to the conditions outlined in the report and additional information. Following debate, and in accordance with the revised Standing Orders, a named vote was taken with the following result:
· Cllrs Craghill, Daubeney, Douglas, Doughty, Fenton, Fisher, Hollyer, Kilbane, Lomas, Myers, Pavlovic, Wann, Warters, Widdowson and Cullwick voted for the motion;
The motion was therefore unanimously carried and it was
Resolved: That approvathe application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report
Resolved: That final approval of the application be delegated to officers subject to no new material planning issues being raised before the consultation period expires on 14 January 2021.
i. The proposals is considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt and would, therefore, by definition be harmful to the Green Belt. Substantial weight is to be given to any harm to the Green Belt. In accordance with the NPPF, inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. There is limited harm on the openness of the Green Belt and limited harm to the green belt purposes.
ii. The very special circumstances are considered cumulatively to be afforded significant weight in the decision making process. The temporary nature of the proposal has also been considered in terms of the proposals impact. The proposal is also considered to be acceptable ... view the full minutes text for item 10b
Variation of condition 4 of permitted application 19/00078/OUTM (redevelopment of the former North Selby Mine site to a leisure development comprising of a range of touring caravan and static caravans with associated facilities) to remove limit of 28 nights occupation in any one calendar year [Wheldrake Ward]
Members considered a Full Application from Peter Massie for the variation of condition 4 of permitted application 19/00078/OUTM (redevelopment of the former North Selby Mine site to a leisure development comprising of a range of touring caravan and static caravans with associated facilities) to remove limit of 28 nights occupation in any one calendar year at North Selby Mine, New Road, Deighton, York.
The Head of Development Services updated the Committee advising of amended wording for Condition 1 (time) and of further correspondence from Liam Toland (Agent for the Applicant) in response to comments from Councillor Vassie concerning the use of renewable energy at the site. It was confirmed that the additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and recommendation remained unchanged from the published report. A presentation on the site location plan, site parameters plan, and indicative master plan from the approved application was given to Members.
In response to questions from Members, officers clarified that:
· The application differed from the previous application as it was on previous developed land.
· The 28 day period was a rolling 28 days and would not fit with the model for the site which was the reason for the submission of the application.
· The site was different to other sites in York as it was on a larger scale.
· Appeals for the 28 day period would be made to the Planning Inspectorate.
· No supplementary information was submitted with the previous application. However, the agent had confirmed that it the site would be a holiday park as the market was moving towards sites similar to those at Hollicars and Allerthorpe Lake.
· The details of the Escrick Parish Council objection.
· The application was made under the Town and Planning Act and the options available to the Committee
· The detail of Condition 4.
· The national planning guidance on the recommended conditions in terms that the application was for holiday purposes and not as a main place of residence. This would include keeping records of occupants on the site. It was noted that the coxwold policy regarding the length of stay referred to the length of stay, and this was the adopted policy.
· Hollicars was not in the York boundary and a condition had been added to that site in 2016 regarding the use of the site for holidays.
Cllr Coulson (Escrick Parish Council) spoke on behalf of Escrick and Deighton Parish Councils in objection to the application. She explained that they wanted to ensure that the site was used for holiday and not for permanent residences. She noted that they had submitted an alternative condition which stated that t the intended use was for holiday use only, and not permanent as residential accommodation. She further suggested that the leasehold was approved by the council’s solicitor. She stated that Escrick and Deighton Parish Councils suggested deferral of the application.
Cllr Vassie (Ward Member) spoke on the application, requesting that if the application was approved he would like a condition committing the applicant to ... view the full minutes text for item 10c