Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: The George Hudson Board Room - 1st Floor West Offices (F045). View directions
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.
Cllr Crawshaw acknowledged that he had spoken in objection to item 4b. as a ward councillor when it was first presented to the committee, however it had been agreed that the application presented to the committee in this meeting was fundamentally different and thus Cllr Crawshaw was not predetermined.
Cllr Daubeney declared a personal interest in item 4b., in that he had received treatment for a brain injury and did not feel that he could be impartial. He therefore stated that he would withdraw from the meeting when that item was to be discussed.
Cllr Doughty declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in that his partner had previously been a director at The Retreat. He stated that this did not predetermine him and that he would participate in discussion of the item.
To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Planning Committee held on 1 July and 5 August 2021.
Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 July 2021 and 5 August 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 5 October 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 one registration to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme on general matters within the remit of the Planning Committee.
Johnny Hayes spoke on general planning matters, but specifically about the Committee returning to in person site meetings for more contentious and complex applications where he felt an in person site visit would be beneficial. Mr Hayes felt such visits increased public confidence in the deliberations of the Planning Committee and gave members the chance to better understand the site. He also stated that it was a good opportunity for the public to question members and officers on planning applications.
The Chair stated that he would discuss with potentially returning to in person site visits with the Chair of the Area-Planning Sub-Committee, Head of Planning and Development Services and committee members.
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 83 dwellings, landscaping, public open space and associated infrastructure [Osbaldwick and Derwent Ward]
Members considered a major full application from Mr Tate for the erection of 83 dwellings, landscaping, public open space and associated infrastructure at OS Field 2800, Eastfield Lane, Dunnington, York. The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application.
In response to questions from members, officers noted that:
· The acceptable number of dwellings per hectare was determined on case specific basis.
· Allocations within in the Local Plan for number of houses in an area that could be developed were indicative, not definitive.
· The reasons they determined the application was not premature were detailed in the report.
· Proposed road improvements included in the development were to continue the 30mph section of road across the site’s frontage while adding access points and pathways.
· The emergency services were consulted during the application process, and did not raise any concerns around emergency access.
· The Council’s landscape architect had not raised objection to the removal of hedgerows on the application, but had merely commented on it.
· There had been an identified need for smaller one or two bedroom affordable housing provision through the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, which was why they had been prioritised in this application.
· The first 3 stages of archaeology work on the site were for creating a methodology, carrying out field work and then a report back to the archaeologist. If these findings justify further archaeological work, then there was a possibility for two more stages
· When the report noted a ‘high level of local need’ for housing, this was referring to the local area of Dunnington as determined by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.
· It was not considered necessary or reasonable to close Eastfield Lane as part of the development. However, it had been agreed with the applicant to impose a no-right turn from the development down Eastfield Lane. The junction was not considered dangerous by officers.
· Education officers had not raised concerns around that there was no physical additional space to teach more pupils at Dunnington School.
· It was not considered reasonable for the Construction Environment Management Plan for the development to be brought to the ward councillors and local parish council for consultation before approval since the decision was solely to local planning authority’s to make, although they could be consulted.
[Cllr Barker joined the meeting at 17:29]
Peter Moorhouse spoke in objection to the application. He stated that he was opposed to building on the green belt, he felt there were inadequate plans for the drainage of surface water and sewage, and he felt the site was poorly laid-out and constituted overdevelopment. He spoke on housing density, and he felt that the proposed development was too high for the surrounding area and would create precedent. Mr Moorhouse also referred to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and stated that he believed the application to be premature and not in compliance with policy.
In response to questions from members Mr Moorhouse stated that he felt the net area should ... view the full minutes text for item 49.
Erection of single and two storey residential healthcare building (use class C2), to include 40 bed spaces, associated treatment rooms, car parking, servicing areas and landscaping. [Micklegate Ward]
Members considered an application for the erection in Micklegate Ward of a single and two storey residential healthcare building (use class C2), to include 40 bed spaces, associated treatment rooms, car parking, servicing areas and landscaping. The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application.
[Cllr Cuthbertson joined the meeting at 19:10]
In response to questions from members, officers stated that:
· That it was difficult to attempt to exactly match the brick colour of surrounding historical buildings, therefore it was thought safer to choose contrasting colours.
· The roads in the development will be primarily paved with tarmac.
· They did not consider access to the proposed development to be an issue, and that the Highways department had not raised any objections to the application.
Johnny Hayes spoke in objection to the application. He spoke on the historical significance of the site in question and stated that although he had initially supported the proposal, he now felt that the design was not of high quality and did not respect its historical surroundings. He felt that the site was too small for a development of this nature and urged members to discuss deferring the application until physical site visits could be begun again.
Mary Urmston spoke in objection to the application. She stated that although the proposal was lower in height than previous applications for this site had been, she believed its negative impact on the area would be great. Ms Urmston felt that Historic England had not been consulted until very late into the application process and that symmetry in the design should have be insisted upon, as with previous applications. She raised concerns about the amount of open space that the development would build on and stated that the site was too small for proposals. Finally, she felt the design was inappropriate and expressed the need for conditions around lighting.
Celia Smith stated that she was not speaking in objection to the application, but raising concerns about aspects of it. She felt that the application contained a number of flaws, raising concerns about a lack of amenities, its large footprint, and she felt it was not in keeping with the character of the local area. Ms Smith believed that the roadway would not be appropriate for the development and had concerns about drainage, flooding and noise pollution. She asked that if the application were approved that the advice from Historic England around landscaping and green space be adopted.
Keeley Mitchell spoke in support of the application support on behalf of The Disabilities Trust, the proposed occupier. She stated that residential care at The Retreat, which housed 40 vulnerable patients and employed 145 staff was closing, and they had been searching for alternative facilities for years. Ms Mitchell stated that if approval was not granted, the patients would have to be moved out of York and all staff would lose their jobs. She emphasised the need for a female-only ward in York with rising demand, and ... view the full minutes text for item 50.