Agenda and minutes

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 Looker noted that she had had two meetings with York Minster in her capacity as Guildhall Ward Councillor and had not made a pre-decision on those applications. Concerning item 4b Cllr D’Agorne noted that he had attended meetings with the residents and developer. He also noted that his partner Cllr Craghill had registered to speak on item 4d. Cllr Barker noted that his wife was employed by York Minster. The Chair noted that Roger Pierce, registered to speak on the item, was a senior officer at a council that the Chair had worked at and as such, the Chair would leave the meeting for that item with Cllr Pavlovic, Vice Chair, taking over as Chair for that item.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Planning Committee held on 7 October and 4 November 2021.

Concerning the minutes of the meeting held on 7 October, the Chair tabled the following suggested amendment to the second paragraph on page 8:

The Chair outlined his reasons for abstaining, which was that he found voting on green belt applications challenging. A member questioned whether he had said that he would never vote for an application on green belt land, as this would predetermine him on future applications. The Chair stately clearly that he had not said this.

This was debated by Members. The Head of Planning and Development Services responded to a question regarding site visits advising that they would continue as virtual site visits and any specific points raised in advance of the visit would be looked at during the site visits.

[The meeting adjourned from 16:55 to 17:00]

Cllr Pavlovic moved deferral of the approval of the minutes to the meeting on 6 January 2022. This was seconded by Cllr Ayre. Eleven Members voted in favour of the motion and two voted against and it was:

Resolved: That;

     i.        The approval of the minutes of the meetings held on 7 October 2021 and 4 November 2021 be deferred to the meeting on 6 January 2022.

    ii.        The Director of Governance and Monitoring Officer attend the next meeting on 6 January 2022.

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 30 November 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 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.

Demolition of gatehouse and erection of up to 302 dwellings (Use Class C3), creche (Use Class E) and associated access, car parking, public open space, landscaping, associated infrastructure and drainage, and other associated works [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered a major full application from Latimer Developments Limited for the demolition of gatehouse and erection of up to 302 dwellings (Use Class C3), creche (Use Class E) and associated access, car parking, public open space, landscaping, associated infrastructure and drainage, and other associated works.

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application noting the site location plan. Members were then given an update advising them of updates to conditions including the deletion of condition 18 with the

Road Safety Audit to be incorporated into amended condition 19 and amendment to condition 31 regarding dedicated visitor car parking spaces.

In response to Member questions, officers clarified that:

·        There had not been an update to the traffic assessment as closure of The Groves was temporary. Should this be made permanent, from the traffic generation figures it was thought that this would have a significant impact.

·        The main route through the site would be adopted. It was not expected that a bus route would run through the site and although this would be possible to get a bus route both ways through the site with a number of small changes.

·        Bus operators had been presented with the plan and had shown no interest in providing a bus route through the site.

·        A number of Members expressed concern about traffic congestion and suggested that a through road could be put through the site. Officers confirmed that no through traffic was a policy in the local plan.

·        Following a request to view the masterplan, officers clarified how the houses were set out on the south of the site.

·        Regarding allocated car parking and designated accessible spaces, the intention was that the council would adopt the highway and there would be a respark type parking scheme on the site. In the courtyard area car parking was allocated with properties and houses typically had parking on their driveways. The apartment blocks did not have any accessible parking.

·        Regarding the developers intention to provide 44 affordable homes, there was an affordable housing statement in the application. This would be a mix of housing and the detail of it was included in the information on the Section 106 agreement in the report.

Public Speakers

Adam Wisher (Applicant) spoke in support of the application. He noted that Latimer was the largest housing association in the UK and that all profits would go back into the wider group. The site had been bought in 2020 and the applicant saw the opportunity to make the site into one cohesive site and balance the mix of housing with family homes. The site was sustainable responded to the housing need, with a number of changes being made to the scheme. 

In response to Member questions, he and colleagues in attendance to answer questions confirmed that:

·        There were no barriers to delivering 36% affordable housing as a different approach was taken to that of a traditional developer. The 36% affordable housing was a guarantee.

·        There would be a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60a

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to form 276no. room purpose built student accommodation with associated car parking, landscaping and facilities [Fishergate Ward]

Members considered a major full application from Petrina Ltd and Grantside (North Star West) Ltd for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to form 276no. room purpose built student accommodation with associated car parking, landscaping and facilities at Mecca Bingo 68 Fishergate York YO10 4AR.

The Head of Planning and Development services gave a presentation on the application using site photos and the proposed elevations. An update was given advising Members of further representations from York Cycle Campaign, further objection comments and the receipt of a letter in support of the application. There were also additional conditions 27 and 28. It was clarified that William Court was to the West of the site.

Officers then responded to Member questions as follows:

·        Regarding the dismissal of the appeal on the application for the former Plumbase site, it was felt that there was more amenity space in this development and with the courtyard it was felt that there was a reasonable amount of community space.

·        Four parking spaces were DDA compliant and this such a condition could be written into tenancy agreements.

·        Regarding whether the imposition of what tenants did off site regarding electric vehicle was lawful, the wording of that condition was taken from the Frederick House determination and could be deleted or amended.

·        The information on the amount of purpose built student accommodation (PBSA), in paragraph 5.9 of the report was provided by the applicant. A Member requested that information not provided by the council in reports should be stated in reports.

·        The student accommodation would be classed as housing land supply.

·        The electric substation adjacent to a resident’s property in William Court would be sound proofed and was a sufficient distance away from the house.

·        Regarding concern about parking near the pedestrian crossing, it was intended that the loading bay would be used for loading/unloading vehicles. There would also be traffic regulation orders (TROs) for Fishergate. It was not feasible to have a loading bay on Fishergate

·        Access and egress for students would be at the back of the building.

·        The application sought to have a building set back and planting would complement the existing planting on the opposite side of the road. The ecology condition was noted.

·        Clarification was given on the location of the access doors and cycle parking. Cycle parking in the courtyard could be requested but there would not be level access. There was a ramp for disabled access.

·        Regarding students accessing their accommodation, the site was secure and the gates were locked.

·        The number of access points was limited. Referring to the site plan, officers showed where the entrances to the building were located.

·        The southern point was a point of access not meant as the main point of access. It was understood that that entrance would be gated.

·        The council archaeologist was content that the archaeology condition was sufficient.

Public Speakers

Ann Clayton (local resident) spoke in objection to the application. She explained that the application design was inappropriate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60b

The Chair proposed Cllr Hollyer as Vice Chair for the remainder of the meeting. This was seconded by Cllr Barker. Following a vote Cllr Hollyer was unanimously elected as Vice Chair.

Resolved: That Cllr Hollyer be appointed as Vice Chair for the remainder of the meeting.

Reason: In order that there be a Vice Chair.

[This application was considered with the following application on the agenda: Minster School, Deangate, York YO1 7JA [21/01536/LBC]

Members considered a full application from Alexander McCallion for the Change of use of former school to York Minster refectory (use class E) to include new restaurant, kitchen and plant, creation of level access, installation of platform lift, new service doors, re-roofing, integration of solar PV panels and external repairs; and creation of a new Public Open Space, including external landscape improvements, gazebo, parasol bases, ice cream hut, railing relocation, cycle parking and cycle service hub at The Minster School, Deangate, York.

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the applications outlining the site location plan, elevations, locations of lifts and toilets, examples of photo voltaic (pv) slates to be used on the roof (it was clarified that the blue slates on the plan denoted the location of the pv slates).

In response to Member questions, the Head of Planning and Development Services and officers were then asked and explained that:

·        The existing slate roof was Westmoreland slate and the proposed slate was based on welsh slate which was more blue in colour. By virtue of the change, there was harm, but this was outweighed by public benefit.

·        The applicant was aware of the highways concerns and would need to address this.

·        There was an underprovision of cycle parking and there were other cycle parking facilities nearby.

·        Any increase in cyclists was not considered to be the effect that more cycle parking was needed.

·        The council Conservation Architect had objected to all elements of the scheme.

The Conservation Architect was in attendance to answer questions. He was asked and confirmed that:

·        With regard to the replacement roof, with listed buildings, replacements needed to be like for like.

·        The roof lights were a later addition and were a part of the listing. Should the application be approved, the changes to the building within it would become part of the listing.

·        The windows were original to the building.

Officers were then asked and clarified that:

·        Locating cycle parking elsewhere could be conditioned.

·        The gazebo was part of the landscaping and the proposed seating and gazebo would be located where the existing climbing frame was.

·        The site was within the scheduled monument which entailed limited permitted development.

·        The play equipment was exclusively for use when the building was a school.

·        Officers could ask Sport England if the cricket nets were classed as sports use and would need Secretary of State approval.

·        Condition 19 (landscaping and planting) could be for the lifetime of the development.

Public Speakers

Mike Fisher spoke in objection to the application. He explained that the Minster Neighbourhood Plan was undergoing inspection. He asked about the environmental cost of the plans for the museum in Deans Park. He added that there was over 60 food outlets nearby and suggested that locating the museum in the school would negate the need for the museum to be located in Deans Park.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60c

Change of use of former school, to the York Minster Refectory (use class E), to include new restaurant, kitchen and plant, creation of level access, installation of platform lift, internal alterations, new service doors, re-roofing, integration of solar PV panels and external repairs; and creation of a new Public Open Space, including external landscape improvements, gazebo, parasol bases, ice cream hut, railing relocation, cycle parking and cycle service hub [Guildhall Ward]

[This application was considered with the previous application at The Minster School, Deangate, York YO1 7JA [21/01535/FUL]

Members considered an application for Listed Building Consent from Mr Alexander McCallion for Change of use of former school, to the York Minster Refectory (use class E), to include new restaurant, kitchen and plant, creation of level access, installation of platform lift, internal alterations, new service doors, re-roofing, integration of solar PV panels and external repairs; and creation of a new Public Open Space, including external landscape improvements, gazebo, parasol bases, ice cream hut, railing relocation, cycle parking and cycle service hub at The Minster School, Deangate, York YO1 7JA.

Cllr Douglas moved approval of the application. This was seconded by Cllr Barker. Following a unanimous vote it was:

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report.

Reason:

     i.        Regard is had to advice in paragraph 199 of the NPPF that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be) and to the legislative requirements to give considerable importance and weight to the harm to a listed building and conservation area. The public benefits are summarised at paragraphs 5.46. to 5.51. above. Whilst it is acknowledged the elements of the proposed development will give rise to varying degrees of harm to the Listed Building and therefore the Conservation Area. It is on balance, considered that these less than substantial harms would be outweighed by the public benefits the proposals would bring about even when giving great weight to the conservation of these assets. The proposals would deliver a very clear objective of the draft Minster Neighbourhood Plan whilst also bringing a currently dormant building back into meaningful use. The proposals would also facilitate the provision of what could become an important publicly accessible space within the precinct.

    ii.        It is therefore recommended that Listed Building Consent be granted; subject to any conditions outlined below. However it should be noted that a number of matters relating to eventual operation of the scheme are covered by conditions attached to the associated application for planning permission therefore they do not require repeating in the granting of Listed Building Consent.  

[The Chair left the meeting at 21.51 at which point Cllr Hollyer took the Chair].

Landscaping works including provision of seating and stepping stones [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered a full application from Alexander McCallion for Landscaping works including provision of seating and stepping stones at College Green, Minster Yard, York.

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation outlining the proposed landscaping and pathways. Members were updated on the application and it was reported that there had been additional representations, comments and consultation responses from York Civic Trust and the council Tree and Landscape Officer, who had suggested an additional condition. It was clarified that conditions included within the published report would achieve the same objectives as those which have been recommended in the consultation comments from the Tree and Landscape Officer and as such it was not considered necessary to amend the conditions set out in the published report. Members were then given clarification on paragraph 5.33 of the report.

In response to Member questions, officers confirmed that:

·        Condition 5 (landscaping) could be amended for the lifetime of the development.

·        The four trees that were to be retained.

·        The benches proposed along the existing boundary wall would be conditioned through the approved plans.

·        The view of College Green from the north west was demonstrated.

Public Speakers

Roger Pierce spoke in support of the objection to the application. He noted that it was a small unspoilt area providing a foreground to the key stones of the Minster. He highlighted the issue of trees and comments of the Tree and Landscape Officer. He noted that the use of the stone seats was rigid and distracted from the scene and he suggested the reuse of stones from the Minster. He requested that the Committee defer the application and that they visit the site to see which tress were proposed for removal. This was supported by a Member who suggested a site visit with the attendance of the Tree and Landscape Officer. The Head of Planning and Development Services advised that there had been a virtual site visit two days before the meeting and the features were pointed out on the visit.

Alexander McCallion (Director of Works & Precinct at York Minster – Applicant) and Andrew Lowson (Executive Director York BID) spoke in support of the application. Alexander McCallion stated that there was a focus on wellbeing and access to open spaces and providing a family friendly space. He noted that College Green would become a high quality space for people to use and engage in. Andrew Lowson noted that York BID had a business plan to work with partners to create more green spaces. He added that they had received positive feedback from businesses and residents on the pop up green spaces across the city centre over the last two years. They were then asked and answered Members questions as follows:

·        Regarding the seating along the path they had consulted with York Disability Rights Forum. The seating was a mixture of stone and benches with arm rests with spaces for wheelchairs along the seating.

·        Regarding whether the shape of the seating would cause difficulty for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60e