Agenda and minutes

Site Visits

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 last meetings of the Planning Committee held on 20 April 2017 and 11 May 2017.

Resolved: That the minutes of the last two meetings of the committee, held on 20 April and 11 May 2017 be approved and then signed by the Chair as correct records.

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 14 June 2017. 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 at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme on general matters within the remit of the Planning Committee.

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.

Outline application for residential development (circa 70 dwellings) with associated access and demolition of existing buildings.

[Hull Road Ward]

Members considered a major outline application by York St John University for residential development (circa 70 dwellings) with associated access and demolition of existing buildings.

In response to a late objection, officers provided clarification on a number of points as follows:

·        the site was not located within the extent of draft Greenbelt as per the 2005 Proposal maps accompanying the Local Plan;

·        Haxby Road, containing 2 artificial pitches, 5 grass football pitches, 2 rugby pitches and 3 junior pitches along with netball courts, sports hall and changing facilities was an adequate replacement of existing sports provision;

·        there was no need for another outdoors sports contribution arising from the new development;

·        refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity would seldom be justified where a draft Local Plan had yet to be submitted for examination.

Officers also advised that the last sentence in paragraph 4.44 of the report should be deleted and that the retention and management of The Green was to be secured by the S106 agreement.

Following Members’ questions, officers clarified that:

·        the community (public) access to this privately owned site was limited to 16 hours per week. This could happen on private land in order to replicate the sport function of this land. The land was available to be booked by sports clubs on the open access basis.

·        the Community Access Committee had not met over the past two years because community access at Haxby Road had been provided. There was anecdotal evidence that schools and local charities applied for access at Haxby Road and CYC made recommendations where else to apply if there was no access due to overbooking / sites not being playable.

·        they had not been aware of any complaints on noise from local residents;

·        the proposed highway development (Paragraph 4.46) would be an adopted road;

·        the Arboricultural Method Statements (AMS) were enforced by the Planning Authority.

Three speakers representing Save Windmill Lane Playing Fields delivered their speeches at that point.

Chris Wedgwood spoke in objection to the proposal, highlighting his concerns about inappropriate development within the outer boundary of the Green Belt (and potential disputes as to whether the site is within the Green Belt or not) should the application be approved, providing an example of Heslington Village Design Statement (supplementary planning guidance that was part of the Local Plan at that time) specifically saying that the village must be permanently open to protect its character. Mr Wedgwood then explained that the Regional Development Plan formed a basis for him to consider the outer boundary of Green Belt to be within six miles outside of York (within the site location).

Adrian Fayter also spoke in objection to the proposal, emphasising health and wellbeing matters such as child obesity and need for green space as the main reasons for the objection. He also clarified that there had not been any barriers in relation to general use of the fields over the past seventeen years and there was no reason to think that this would cease  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Conversion and extension of the former Almond and Cream blocks to form 258 apartments; demolition of buildings to the rear of the Joseph Rowntree Library and rear extension to accommodate concierge and community room; erection of convenience store and associated access, car parking, cycle stores and landscaping.[Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application by York 123 Ltd for the conversion and extension of the former Almond and Cream blocks to form 258 apartments, the demolition of buildings to the rear of the Joseph Rowntree Library and rear extension to accommodate concierge and community room, as well as erection of convenience store with associated access, car parking, cycle stores and landscaping.

Officers advised that progress had been made in relation to negotiations on the S106 agreement to secure affordable housing, open space, education and sustainable transport measures and provide an update on this. They advised that it was considered that the children’s onsite play facility, which was proposed as a condition in the written update, would be better secured through the S106 agreement instead.

Officers explained that an anonymous written representation in objection to the proposal had been circulated to Members; this raised concerns about affordable housing need in the city, air quality issues, highway safety, heritage assets and the composition uses.

A further objection from Mr David Merrett had been received and this included concerns about location of the new pedestrian crossing near the roundabout, potential loss of cycle lane and inadequate provision for cyclists.

It was also advised that the Conservation Areas Advisory Panel welcomed the removal of the additional floor and changes to the window detailing and, with regard to listed building consent, had no objection to any of the proposed alterations.

In response to Members’ questions, officers explained that:

·        the concept of the Environmental Management Plan was to encourage developers to be pro-active in preventing potential complaints; this did not preclude the complainant from alerting Local Authority if the complaint was not resolved;

·        The Condition 16 (Landscaping) was for lifetime by default;

·        the replacement windows would be double-glazed.

Gregory House, a local resident, spoke in objection to the proposal, highlighting the need for holistic development and strategic plans to be put into place. He explained that the current state provided houses, medical facilities and catering for community needs which would not be the case should the application be approved. He also raised issues of traffic, pollution and the location of Haxby Primary School as arguments supporting his objection.

Janet O’Neill then spoke in her capacity as the agent for the applicant, pointing out that:

·        the site had been neglected for nearly ten years;

·        the heritage assets would be preserved;

·        the needs of existing and future residents would be met by facilities such as convenience store;

·        it was critical for developers to obtain planning permission now in order that work can start on the new access road for Nestle as per the applicant’s contractual obligations;

·        the play provision area would be accommodated;

·        the connection of the cycle route to Sustrans was out of the applicant’s control and would result with a large amount of trees being removed.

Officers then responded to Mr Dave Merrett’s written representation, reassuring Members that the road safety conditions were met, particularly near the roundabout area where pedestrian refuges and access  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Demolition of buildings to the rear and erection of rear extension to accommodate a concierge, community room and cycle store. [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application for listed building consent by York 123 Ltd for the demolition of buildings to the rear and erection of a rear extension to accommodate the concierge, community and cycle store.

This report linked directly to the plans item 4b (application ref 17/00284/FULM) which had already been discussed during the meeting.

Resolved:          

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

Reason:             

The scheme leads to the loss of C20 buildings which are not prominent in public views and have a neutral value to the library and its setting.  The scheme would bring the library back into a communal use and introduce a building which by virtue of its single storey scale, proposed shape and harmonious materials would improve the setting.  There would be no harm to the historic and architectural importance of the library. 

Proposals are in accordance with the NPPF policies on conserving and enhancing the historic environment, in particular paragraph 126 (referred to in 4.2) by virtue of putting the listed building into a viable use consistent with its conservation, which will provide an amenity for residents. The re-development scheme will make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Construction of access road with associated landscaping and highway works. [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by York 123 Ltd for the construction of an access road into the site from Haxby road (on the north side of the buildings) with associated landscaping and highway works. Some of the issues related to this item had already been discussed during consideration of item 4b (application ref 17/00284/FULM).

Gregory House, a local resident, spoke in objection to the proposal, stating that the current proposal would lead to greater congestion and risk to pedestrians in the surrounding area. He also described potential solutions that could pre-empt these issues, including seeking permission for additional crossroads to be installed in the area.

Janet O’Neill also spoke, in support of the proposal, explaining that the application had been put forward separately to item 4b due to its urgency as per the obligations with Nestle who agreed to the application if a separate entrance to the factory was provided and highlighting that all the changes requested by the Officers as part of the application had been undertaken. She advised that that the royal oak tree (which had been planted as a memorial) which would be removed should the application be approved could be replaced as part of the landscaping scheme.

Members discussed the proposal, acknowledging the traffic issues which had been raised in relation to the detail of the junction.  Some Members suggested deferring the application in order for the applicants to explore with Nestle the possibility routing the access road to connect  directly   with the nearby roundabout .

Resolved:

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

Reason:    

The road access and associated changes in the highway are necessary to facilitate re-development of a considerable previously developed site in the urban area which has been identified by the Council to assist in meeting housing need.  Re-development is desirable; consistent with the following core principles within the NPPF -

-      proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs.

-      encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value.

Whilst this would lead to the loss of trees which have amenity value, these would be replaced and overall the former industrial site would see an increase in tree cover and an enhancement to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

The works would not have an adverse effect on highway safety in this respect and nor would there be undue conflict with the NPPF which states developments should be located and designed where practical to give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities and create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones.

Change of use of agricultural buildings to livery stables and caravan touring pitches including refreshment and toilet block. [Strensall Ward]

Members considered a full application by Mr Andrew Thompson for the change of use of agricultural buildings to livery stables and caravan touring pitches including refreshment and toilet block. This application had been deferred by the committee at their meetings on 23 March and 20 April 2017 in order to allow the applicant to provide further supporting information on the operation of the proposed business and its financial circumstances in order to justify very special circumstances.. It was noted that paragraphs 4.25 and 4.27 of the report included this updated information.

Eamonn Keogh spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent for the applicant, emphasising that it was the decision makers’ responsibility to consider whether the very special circumstances in relation to the question of the Green Belt applied. He advised Members that the openness of the Green Belt would be improved should the application be approved and that the caravan site would be closed between November and March.

Members proceeded to further discuss the application, questioning whether pig odour or the development’s positive impact on visual qualities merited the special circumstances definition and whether there were any special economic reasons giving the reason for approval. Some Members referred to other applications where very special circumstances had been demonstrated despite the overall bigger impact in the area. It was also noted that, if the application was approved based on the overstated arguments in this case, the Committee could face potential challenges from other applicants in the future.

Some Members felt that the proposed caravan park was small in scale and was not likely to compromise the Green Belt and that it was only a minor part of the application, provided a different business opportunity for the applicant and a recreational opportunity for those who wanted to enjoy it. Other Members, while acknowledging the case for the livery stables, did not feel that very special circumstances had been proven in respect of the caravans.

Resolved:          

That the application be refused.

Reason:          

It is considered that the proposed touring caravan pitches constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt as set out in Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework. As such, the proposal results in harm to the Green Belt, by definition, and harms the openness of the Green Belt and conflicts with the purposes of including land within it by failing to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. Additional harm has also been identified as a result of the impact of the introduction of touring caravans in to an otherwise rural landscape. The circumstances put forward by the applicant do not clearly outweigh this harm and do not amount to very special circumstances for the purposes of the NPPF. The proposal is, therefore, considered contrary to advice within the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular section 9 'Protecting Green Belt land'.

Construction of realigned and widened access road and bridge (retrospective) to serve approved log cabins and fishing lake adjacent to property. [Osbaldwick and Derwent Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr Peter Mandy for the construction of a realigned and widened access road and bridge (retrospective) to serve the approved log cabins and fishing lake adjacent to the property.

Officers provided an update, stating that since the committee report had been written, consultation responses from the Environment Agency and Strategic Flood Risk Management had not been received. It was, therefore, recommended that the second reason for refusal in respect of flood risk be withdrawn.

Mark Stothard spoke in support of the proposal in his capacity as the agent for the applicant and asked Members to note the following:

·        the reason for refusal on grounds of the green belt development was contrary to the previous planning approval for the bridge;

·        the bridge was designed to the minimum size possible in order to cross the brook.

·        The bridge has been constructed to the same detail and size of the previous approved drawing.

Members noted that the bridge was wider than the approved permission allowed and discussed whether there were grounds for refusal given the minimal impact of development in the area. They acknowledged however that the site was in the greenbelt and that very special circumstances for development in the greenbelt would need to be shown for it to be approved. Most Members felt that, in the absence of any very special circumstances, that the application should be refused.

Resolved:          

That the application be refused.

Reason:             

The proposal constitutes an engineering operation. Due to its scale, design and palette of materials it gives rise to substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt and as such is inappropriate development contrary to paragraph 90 of the NPPF. No other considerations have been put forward by the Applicant that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and therefore in the absence of any very special circumstances the proposal is therefore contrary to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy YH9 of the Yorkshire and Humber Plan and also conflict with Draft Development Control Local Plan (2005) policy GB1: Development in the Green Belt.

Erection of building for storage and distribution (use class B8) [Osbaldwick and Derwent Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application by Ness Hall Ltd for the erection of a building for storage and distribution (use class B8).

Members acknowledged that although the proposed building was 6m higher than surrounding buildings, it was difficult to predict if it would be seen from a distance although it was likely that the roof would be seen from some parts of the area. A dark colour would be used on the roof rather than a light colour to reduce visibility.

Resolved:          

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

Reason:

It is considered that the proposed development will be located in an appropriate location within an existing industrial estate. Furthermore, it accords with a core principle of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to 'positively drive and support sustainable economic development'. It is not considered that the development will result in a significant adverse impact on residential amenity which  can also be protected by imposition of a condition restricting access to the site from the alternative. Accordingly, it is considered that the development complies with the principles of the NPPF and those draft Local Plan polices that are consistent with the NPPF, in particular policies E3B and GP1. The requirements of policy GP15a and GP6 can be addressed by conditions.

It is not considered that there are any material considerations that would outweigh the general support for economic development.

Erection of a silage clamp and silos (retrospective application) [Rural West Ward]

Members considered a major full application by Askham Bryan College for the erection of a silage clamp and silos (retrospective application) within the existing farm unit located to the west of the campus on the brow of the hill.

Officers  provided an update to the report, highlighting that the Flood Risk Management Team had no objections to the development. They also proposed an amendment to Condition 1 to include the revised site plan as well as additional conditions to cover surface water drainage and landscaping. Members discussed the reasons why the silage clamps needed to be formally approved by the Committee.

Resolved:          

That the application be REFERRED to the Secretary of State and, provided that the application is not called in for their own determination, DELEGATED authority be given to the Assistant Director for Planning and Public Protection to APPROVE the application subject to the conditions listed in the report as well as the amended and additional conditions below:

Amended Condition 1

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:-

·        Drawing Number (05)20 Revision A ' Farm Area: Proposed Silage Clamp' received 15 March 2017;

·        Drawing Number LL01 Revision F 'Landscape Proposal' received 25 April 20147;

·        Drawing Number (05) 01 'Location Plan' received 15 March 2017

·        Drawing Number (05)25 Revision A ‘Proposed Site Block Plan’ received 12 June 2017;

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Additional condition: Surface Water Drainage

The surface water drainage scheme for the development hereby approved shall be in accordance with Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Statement (by Dosser Mason Clark Associates received 15 March 2017) and the Surface Water Drainage Design Proposals and Calculations, job number 12905 ( by Dosser Mason Clark Associates received 15 March 2017).

Reason: So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied that there is proper and sustainable drainage of the site

Additional condition: Landscaping

The approved landscaping scheme (Drawing Number LL01 Revision F received 25 April 2017’) shall be implemented within a period of six months of the granting of this planning permission. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless alternatives are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area. To ensure that the screening of the silage clamp is undertaken.

Reason:

The application site is located within the general extent of the York Green Belt and serves a number of Green Belt purposes. As such it falls to be considered under paragraph 87 of the NPPF which states inappropriate development, is by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Use of premises as a trade only building supplies warehouse (use class B8) with associated external alterations to external elevations and erection of 3m high palisade fencing and gates and 5m high external storage racking. [Osbaldwick and Derwent Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Selco Trade Centres Ltd for the use of premises as a trade only building supplies warehouse (use class B8) with associated external alterations to external elevations as well as erection of 3m high palisade fencing and gates and 5m high external storage racking.

Officers provided an update, advising that Condition 8 should be amended slightly to add clarity on delivery times. They also proposed that the colour of fencing and external racking be controlled by a new condition.

Members noted that the proposed hours were greater than the current operating hours for the site’s current use which was a concern of some residents, but acknowledged that these were standard hours for builders’ merchants.

The question of retaining the existing hedge along the highway frontage was also discussed and it was suggested that a condition be added to ensure that the hedge was maintained at a reasonable height. With regard to lighting and noise levels, Members were advised that the change in noise levels would be minimal and that the lighting was considered appropriate and should not have any impact on the surrounding area.

Resolved:

That the application be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the report as well as the amended and additional conditions as follows:

Amended Condition 8

No deliveries (other than those agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside the following hours:

·        Monday - Saturday 07:00 to 20:00

·        Saturdays 07:30 to 20:00

·        Sundays and bank holidays and public holidays 10:00 to 16:00

Reason: To Protect the amenity of nearby premises.

Additional Condition 15

Notwithstanding any proposed colours specified on the approved

drawings or in the application form, details of the colour of the palisade fencing and external racking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to its erection. The development shall be carried out using the approved colour and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and

Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order), shall be retained as approved.

Reason: To ensure that the colour of tall fencing and racking erected adjacent to landscaped areas bounding the site is not obtrusive.

Additional Condition 16

A hedge on the front boundary of the site shall be retained along minimum height of 2.2m. If any hedge or replacement hedges along the front boundary die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased they shall be replaced in the next planting season with a new hedge of a similar size and species, that shall be retained at a minimum height of 2.2m.

Reason: To protect the semi-rural character of the street and help to screen the outdoor storage.

Additional Condition 17

Before the commencement of and during building operations, adequate measures shall be taken to protect the existing hedgerow along the front boundary of the site. This means of protection shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Single storey side and rear extensions, front porch and alterations to front dormers (Revised scheme)[Copmanthorpe Ward]

Members considered a full application by Mrs Jane Keely for the erection of a single storey flat roof side and rear extensions, pitched roof front porch and alternations to front dormers.

Members welcomed the informative in relation to avoiding damage to the highway grass verge.

Resolved:          

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

Reason:             

The proposals are considered to comply with the NPPF, DCLP Policies H7 and GP1, Supplementary Planning Guidance - House Extensions and Alterations (Approved 2012) and Copmanthorpe Village Design Statement.