Agenda and minutes
Venue: The George Hudson Board Room - 1st Floor West Offices (F045). View directions
Contact: Louise Cook/Catherine Clarke (job-share)
Webcast: video recording
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.
At this point in the meeting, Members were asked to declare any
personal, prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests that they
might have had in the business on the agenda.
Councillor Derbyshire declared a personal non prejudicial interest in plans item 4a (Clifford’s Tower, Tower Street) as her employer was a consultee for building work on Clifford’s Tower.
Councillor Cuthbertson declared a personal non prejudicial interest in the same item as one of council’s appointed representatives on York Museums Trust.
To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Thursday 15 September 2016.
Resolved: That the minutes of the last Planning Committee held on 15 September 2016 be approved and then signed by the Chair as a correct record.
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 5pm on Wednesday 26 October 2016. 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 Officers for the meeting, on the details at the foot of this agenda.
Filming or Recording Meetings
Please note this meeting will be filmed and webcast and that includes 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, i.e. tweeting. Anyone wishing to film, record or take photos at any public meeting should contact the Democracy Officers (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
under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme on general
issues 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 (Development Services, Planning and Regeneration)
relating to the following planning applications outlining the
proposals and relevant policy considerations and setting out the
views of consultees and Officers.
Erection of visitor centre at base of motte, cafe unit on roof deck, installation of new staircase, tower floor, walkways, balustrading, roof-deck and restoration works. [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]
Members considered a full application by English Heritage for the erection of a visitor centre at the base of the motte, café unit on the roof deck, installation of a new staircase, tower floor, walkways, balustrading, roof-deck and restoration works.
Officers circulated an update to Members which covered the following points, a copy of which was attached to the online agenda following the meeting:
Five third party representations had been received following publication of the agenda which raised the following concerns:
· Clifford's Tower is associated with one of the worst periods of intolerance and religious hatred in English history, which ultimately saw around 150 Jewish people commit suicide rather than face the prospect of burning to death in 1190. It is considered that a cafe is completely at odds with what should be a site of reflection and commemoration. If there must be a visitor site, the suggestion would be to build it as an extension to the castle museum.
· The proposals may compromise future aspirations regarding public realm enhancement within the area
· The proposal makes little concession to less able visitors and the true public benefits of the scheme are questioned.
Conservation Areas Advisory Panel
The Panel was disappointed that the main scheme had not progressed from the pre-app proposal. They did not agree with the principle of the proposal, considering that the opportunity should be taken to provide a free-standing building which could relate to and explain the whole Eye of York site, its buildings and history: Clifford’s Tower, the Castle Museum, the Prison, the Crown Court etc
Council for British Archaeology (CBA)
Whilst the current proposals represent the beginnings of a potentially acceptable scheme, further work should be undertaken to make these appropriate for the sensitivities and significance of this heritage asset;
· The CBA feels that a detailed archaeological mitigation strategy should be submitted as part of a full and robust proposal;
· The CBA feels that the proposals miss opportunities to enhance the visitor experience at this iconic York structure;
· The CBA has concerns regarding the character and extent of the proposed internal access arrangements; and
· The CBA has concerns regarding the character, extent and location of the proposed Visitor Centre.
Regarding a recent feasibility study that had been conducted for a new independent building within the area of Clifford’s Tower, Members were informed that a report would be received later in the new year about the land ownership. The land was part of the Southern Gateway project and there were time constraints attached, it was leased to English Heritage by the Council.
It was reported that two speakers had registered to speak in objection:
Alderman Brian Watson stated that the Tower was one of the most visited tourist attractions in England but did not receive many return visits. He stated that the steps up the mound were an important feature. The design of the visitor centre and the addition of a café did not add value. He felt that the Officer recommendation should ... view the full minutes text for item 40.
Replacement garage/workshop building (revised scheme). [Wheldrake Ward] [Site Visit]
Members considered a full application by Mr P Bleakley for a replacement garage/workshop building (revised scheme).
Officers reported that there had been no objections from the Flood Risk Management Officer to the application.
Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report.
Reason: It is considered that the other considerations put forward by the applicant together with the mitigation of other harm through the imposition of appropriate planning conditions clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm (impact on openness), and thereby amount to very special circumstances to allow the inappropriate development in the York Green Belt even when substantial weight is given to such harm.
Demolition of boathouse and construction of replacement boathouse, extension of boat repair block to accommodate sports facilities and amenities, extension of steps to river. [Clifton Ward] [Site Visit]
Members considered a full application by St Peter’s School for the demolition of a boathouse and construction of a replacement boathouse, extension of boat repair block to accommodate sports facilities and amenities and extension of steps to river.
In their update to Members, Officers stated that there was an error in the report at paragraph 4.15; which stated that in the 2005 Draft Local Plan proposals, the site was identified as Green Belt land. This was incorrect, it was not included as Green Belt. In addition, revised drawings submitted by the applicant illustrated that an ash tree would be retained.
It was reported that one speaker had registered to speak in objection:
Mr Pugsley, a user of the riverside footpath, spoke in objection to the application. He felt that the large steps were unnecessary, unsightly and would damage the natural habitat. He added that the application site was also on a national cycle path and so would cause congestion for other users of the path. He questioned why the proposal prioritised an activity that did not take place all year round.
It was reported that one speaker had registered to speak in support:
Janet O’Neill, the agent for the applicant spoke in support of the proposal. She highlighted an audit that showed that rowing was growing in popularity but lacked facilities. The current boathouse was too small and it was dangerous for users to retrieve boats from the river in front of the boathouse. She explained that the steps would allow for a number of boats to launch simultaneously. As there would be an impact on the green belt, the boathouse would be painted green and hand diggings had been carried out due to a veteran tree on site.
In response to questions from Members, the applicant outlined that;
· St Peter’s School would need to balance their partnership with York City Rowing Club, who had access to the boathouse to work with other schools in the city.
· The steps would be lengthened to allow for a number of boats to be launched at the same time and also because the students were timetable restricted, and wished to lengthen their access on the water.
Members entered debate and the following views and points were expressed;
· There were opportunities for roosting bats within the design of the boathouse which could be conditioned, if planning permission was granted.
· There would be minimal impact to the habitat caused by the application.
· A more secure facility was needed for the storage of boats.
Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report and an amended and additional condition;
2. Drawing no 2. 2014-273/1303 rev. K ‘Site Layout Plan’ dated 24/10/16
12. The design of the lower boathouse shall include features which are suitable to accommodate roosting bats, the details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before construction of the building commences. The scheme shall be ... view the full minutes text for item 42.
Erection of 97 bedroom hotel. [Micklegate Ward] [Site Visit]
Members considered a full major application by Mr Paul Manku for the erection of a 97 bedroom hotel.
Officers provided a written update, a copy of which was attached to the online agenda. They advised that since the publication of the agenda comments had been received from the following:
Councillor Hayes objected to the application as he felt the development was too large and would not be in keeping with its location on the riverside. It would also overshadow the houses on Lower Ebor Street. He added that there were concerns about the amount of traffic that would be generated in a tranquil area and felt that the riverside would be diminished with a development of the size proposed.
There had been comments received from the caravan club:
· There was limited space for a landscape buffer and landscaping conditions were requested to maintain the setting of the caravan park, by giving privacy at the boundary & limiting light pollution.
· There is potential for noise during construction. A condition is asked for, to approve a CEMP & restrict times of working (note a CEMP is required under condition 7).
· Potential noise from the aparthotel, because the proposed use could operate as a venue for conferences, functions and events and therefore will be operational late in to evening and over the weekends, unlike the approved hotel. A condition is requested that these extra uses are not permitted.
· Conditions are also requested to control noise, cooking odour and times of deliveries
Comments received from local residents included:
· The Council will be held liable for any issues, loss or damages whatsoever created by the scheme. This includes road traffic noise, nuisance, damage, disruption, deterioration in any aspect generally, any nuisance, damage and disruption caused locally by the proposed build itself or afterwards by any nuisance, damage, disruption or similar which in any way results in loss of amenity, enjoyment or reduction in value of property or wellbeing.
· The Council are representatives of local residents and should not ignore the significant level of public objection to the scheme.
· The caravan club is well-managed and does not tolerate anti-social behaviour. It is noted that there is curfew and occupants need to be back on site in the evening.
· The Environment Agency (EA) had proposed improved flood defences for the area which are unlikely to occur if this development were to go ahead.
A written objection on behalf of Duke’s Wharf residents had been received from AAH Planning. It stated that the scheme was not compliant with recent Environment Agency (EA) policy on recommended finished floor levels.
This objection suggested that the application be deferred to allow the applicants to remodel against the most up-to-date climate change figures.
Members were informed that the Council’s Drainage Engineer had provided further technical information, details of which were included in the Officer update, which was published online.
It was reported that were two registrations to speak in objection to the application:
Robert Walker, spoke on behalf of the residents at Duke’s ... view the full minutes text for item 43.
Use of the land for the siting of 15 touring caravans / camping pitches. [Wheldrake Ward] [Site Visit]
Members considered a full application by Mr and Mrs Wilkinson for the use of the land for the siting of 15 touring caravans/camping pitches.
An Officer update which included three suggested additional conditions if planning permission was granted, was circulated to Members. This was published with the agenda following the meeting.
One speaker had registered to speak in support of the application:
Kevin Robinson, the agent for the applicant explained to the Committee how the high occupancy rates at the caravan park meant that people had to be turned away. He underlined the economic benefits that the proposal would bring to Naburn village and also pointed out the sustainable transport links.
A Member of Council had registered to speak in support of the application:
Councillor Mercer highlighted that the land proposed for the additional pitches would be well screened from roads, would not produce noise after 11pm and would not be visible from other properties. She stated the additional pitches would also benefit the local public house and that the proximity of the bus stop would encourage visitors to travel into York.
Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report and the following three additional conditions;
(i) Details of any scheme for illumination of all external areas of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 8 weeks of the permission being granted and the agreed scheme shall thenceforth be implemented on site on first usage of the authorised pitches and thereafter.
Reason: To protect the living conditions of the nearby residential properties and to prevent light pollution.
(ii) Details of all machinery, plant and equipment to be installed in or located on the use hereby permitted, which is audible outside of the site boundary when in use, shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval prior to the pitches hereby authorised being first brought into use. These details shall include maximum (LAmax (f)) and average sound levels (LAeq), octave band noise levels and any proposed noise mitigation measures. All such approved machinery, plant and equipment shall not be used on the site except in accordance with the prior written approval of the local planning authority. The machinery, plant or equipment and any approved noise mitigation measures shall be fully implemented and operational before the proposed use first opens and shall be appropriately maintained thereafter.
Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby residential
(iii) A noise management scheme shall be agreed with the local planning authority which shall specify the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site. The scheme should in particular, address noise from customers on site and the handling of noise complaints received by the camping site. The scheme shall be approved by the local planning authority within 8 weeks of the permission being granted and once approved implemented and adhered to on first implementation of the pitches and thereafter.
Reason: To ... view the full minutes text for item 44.
Change of use of part of car park to 12 hole artificial all weather putting course. [Fulford and Heslington Ward] [Site Visit]
Members considered a full application by Drew Kirby for a change of use of part of car park to a 12 hole artificial all weather putting course.
Officers provided a written update to Members, this was published with the agenda online after the meeting. In the update they advised that;
There was an error in the report, in paragraph 1.2 the fencing height was 1.2m not 1.5m as stated.
Comments received from Landscape Architect
- Considers that the proposal would slightly enhance the visual and physical landscape. Would involve the removal of 2 small trees and includes the planting of 25 small species trees
- The boundary fence follows the kerb line so there would be no impact on existing trees to be retained
- A condition is recommended to secure a method statement to ensure that adequate tree protection is observed during the construction phase
Officers advised that an additional condition be included regarding protection measures for existing trees.
Comments received from Flood Risk Engineer
- Notes that the proposal involves breaking up of the existing tarmac to ensure free drainage
- No objections are raised on flood risk or drainage grounds
One speaker had registered to speak in support of the application:
Simon Laws, the agent for the applicant informed the Committee about the landscaping aspects of the application. The features would be Historic York landmarks. The site itself would result in a loss of six car parking spaces.
Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report and the additional landscaping condition detailed below.
Before the commencement of development including demolition, excavations and building operations, an Arboricultural Method Statement regarding protection measures for the existing trees shown to be retained on the approved drawings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Amongst others, this statement shall include details and locations of protective fencing and method of installation, site rules and prohibitions, arrangements for loading/off-loading, parking arrangements for site vehicles, locations for stored materials, locations and means of installing utilities, location of site compound and marketing suite where applicable. The document shall also include methodology for removing the existing surface and installing the proposed surfacing and planting. A copy of the document will be available for inspection on site at all times.
Reason: To protect existing trees which are covered by a Tree Preservation Order and/or are considered to make a significant contribution to the amenity of this area and/or development.
Reason: (i) The proposal would have no significant impact on openness, nor would the proposal conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. It is considered that the proposal would complement the existing retail function of the site, potentially making it more attractive as a retail destination thus bringing economic benefits to the area.
(ii)It is considered that taken together, the site circumstances and other considerations referred to above, even when attaching substantial weight to the harm ... view the full minutes text for item 45.
Erection of 67 dwellings. [Huntington/New Earswick Ward]
Members considered an outline major application by Pilcher Homes Ltd for the erection of 67 dwellings.
It was reported that three people had registered to speak in objection to the application.
David Trayhorn, a local resident spoke about the detrimental effect that the development would have on the carbon footprint of the area from the increase in houses and traffic. He felt that the local infrastructure needed to be improved before any new development was approved.
Roy Brown, a local resident, felt that no very special circumstances had been demonstrated by the applicant for building in the green belt. He felt that the land was the final natural barrier that remained between Earswick and Huntington and stopped the two villages from coalescence.
Professor Hartley, a local resident, spoke regarding a consultation document which had been circulated by the applicant. She informed the Committee that it was incorrect that he had consulted widely with residents, as those on Strensall Road had not been informed of the planned development.
Two speakers had registered in support of the application:
Simon Chadwick, the agent for the applicant stated that the application site was not in the green belt and that until York had an adopted up to date Local Plan special circumstances could not be demonstrated. He added that the development would be bounded by the ring road on two sides and therefore could not be classified as sprawl. He advised that the Committee approve the application on the basis of sustainable housing.
Robert Pilcher the applicant, spoke about the history of development on Avon Drive and referred to the previous application submitted. He informed the Committee about the alterations.
In response to Members’ questions, the applicant responded:
· The information leaflets were circulated by a company which were told to look at certain areas in York.
· There would be 27 starter homes on the site.
· No planning permission had been necessary on the original Avon Drive site sixty years ago.
· Changes had been made to the application as a result of consultation with Members, the leaflets were for information.
Diane Geogheghan- Breen, Chair of Huntington Parish Council, spoke in regards to the community effect that the development would have, such as on local schools and on GP surgeries.
Councillor Cullwick spoke as the Ward Member. He referred to the previous Draft Local Plan which did not include development on the site. He was unaware of the leaflets that had been circulated and wanted to know about the geographic location of the “likes” on the New Homes for York Facebook page, which had been established in association with the application.
During debate some Members felt that although it was an attractive development, the draft local plan had located the site within the Green Belt. They added that they were concerned about the coalescence between the two villages.
Others expressed the view that the location was appropriate and the applicant had considered access and a number of the new properties would be affordable starter ... view the full minutes text for item 46.