Agenda and minutes
Venue: Dante room, York Racecourse
Contact: Democratic Services Email: email@example.com
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.
No interests were declared but Cllr Craghill, in the interests of transparency, confirmed that although her partner Cllr D’Agorne would be making representations on the application under consideration, she herself had had no previous involvement in the matter and would approach the application with an open mind.
To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Planning Committee held on 17 June 2021.
In response to a query on the S106 contribution referred to in the resolution at Minute 31a, officers stated that the location of utilities prevented the planting of trees as suggested, and a solution was being sought to this.
Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 2021 be approved, and signed by the Chair as a correct record.
At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered to speak can do so. Members of the public may speak on agenda items or on matters within the remit of the committee.
Please note that our registration deadlines have changed to 2 working days before the meeting, in order to facilitate the management of public participation at remote meetings. The deadline for registering at this meeting is 5:00pm on Tuesday 3 August 2021.
To register to speak please visit www.york.gov.uk/AttendCouncilMeetings to fill in an online registration form. If you have any questions about the registration form or the meeting, please contact Democratic Services. Contact details can be found at the foot of this agenda.
Webcasting of Public Meetings
Please note that, subject to available resources, this meeting will be webcast, including any registered public speakers who have given their permission. The 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 report of the Assistant Director, Planning and Public Protection, relating to the following planning application, outlining the proposals and relevant policy considerations and setting out the views of consultees and officers.
Variation of condition 2 of permitted application 19/00603/FULM seeking amendments to external appearance, landscaping, internal arrangements, substation, refuse and cycle stores [Fishergate Ward]
Members considered a full application by Laura Pennington for a variation of condition 2 of permitted application 19/00603/FULM seeking amendments to the external appearance, landscaping, internal arrangements, substation, refuse and cycle stores at Frederick House, Fulford Road, York YO10 4EG.
Officers provided an update at the meeting, seeking the removal of Condition 9 (relating to archaeology), which was no longer needed because the relevant information had already been submitted.
A presentation was given, based on the slides at pages 37-59 of the agenda pack. In response to Members’ questions on the report and presentation, officers confirmed that:
· The application must be considered in the context of planning policies rather than building regulations, and on its own merits rather than by re-visiting the original application.
· The overall impact of the variation on the conservation area was considered to be neutral, and the 4-storey block was only visible from Kilburn Road in the gaps between houses.
· The colour of the brick replacement emulated the appearance of timber cladding, and kept the aesthetic.
· No enforcement action had taken place in respect of continued building work because the application for a variation had already been submitted. This decision did not amount to a pre-judgment of the application.
David Hopwood, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application on behalf of his father and other residents of Kilburn Road, on the grounds that the increase in height would block the light to and view from their properties and the replacement of timber cladding with brick was unnecessary in terms of fire risk.
Cllr D’Agorne spoke in objection as the Ward Member for Fishergate, supporting the comments of the previous speaker and questioning why building work had been allowed to continue in breach of the conditions of the original planning consent.
Ben Wrighton, of Watkin James, spoke on behalf of the applicant, stating that the application sought to address issues relating to biodiversity, fire risk and climate change, and that changes had been kept to a minimum. He then responded to Members’ questions, along with Jonathan Morris (Senior Design Manager for Watkin James), stating that:
· They had considered reducing the building height by sinking it lower into the ground, but this would affect drainage and disabled access.
· The substitution of brick for timber cladding was chiefly to address the perception of fire risk; it was not a cheaper option.
· Consideration had been given to reducing the pitch of the roof but this would have a negative effect on the appearance of the building.
Responding to further questions from Members, officers confirmed that the removal of the timber cladding and the increase in height were both material considerations. The increase was a maximum of 30 cm, and in view of the distance from neighbouring properties this was considered acceptable. A change in the roof pitch would be considered negative in terms of conservation.
During the debate that followed Cllr Warters moved, and Cllr Looker seconded, that the application be refused on ... view the full minutes text for item 40a