Local democracy during coronavirus

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates for more information on meetings and decisions.

Agenda and minutes

Venue: The George Hudson Board Room - 1st Floor West Offices (F045). View directions

Contact: Angela Bielby  Democracy Officer

Items
No. Item

66.

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.

 

 

Minutes:

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 Waudby declared a non prejudicial interest in that her husband worked for a different Bingo provider in York.

 

Cllrs Ayre, Webb and D’Agorne declared non prejudicial interests that they were members of the Car Club.

67.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 215 KB

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Planning Committee held on 6 January 2022.

 

Minutes:

The Chair noted that, with reference to paragraph 6 of item 64a in the Minutes, the motion to approve the application was seconded by Cllr Fenton.

 

Resolved:  That, subject to the amendment stated above, the minutes of the last meeting held on 6 January 2022 be approved and signed by the chair as a correct record.

 

68.

Public Participation

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 1 February 2022.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

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.

 

69.

Plans List

This item invites Members to determine the following planning applications:

Minutes:

Members considered a schedule of reports of the Head of Planning and Development Services, relating to the following planning applications, outlining the proposals and relevant policy considerations and setting out the views of consultees and officers.

 

70.

Mecca Bingo, 68 Fishergate, York YO10 4AR [21/01605/FULM] pdf icon PDF 575 KB

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to form 275no. room purpose built student accommodation with associated car parking, landscaping and facilities [Fishergate Ward]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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 275no. room purpose built student accommodation with associated car parking, landscaping and facilities at Mecca Bingo 68 Fishergate York YO10 4AR.  This item had been deferred at Planning Committee 2 December 2021.

 

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application.  The Case Officer then updated Members regarding the Section 106 requirement to secure funding towards assistance with travel planning, as well as responses to representations made concerning the consideration of the Equalities Act 2010, the viability of the former use and the highways effects.

 

Public Speaker

 

Ann Clayton, a local resident spoke in objection to the application.  She raised concerns regarding the location, size and electromagnetic fields of the substation and switch house.  She also referred to a loss of privacy and shared concerns regarding highway safety.

 

In response to a question from Members, Mrs Clayton explained that she had been informed by the Architect and Communication Officer that additional electricity generated by the substation would be sold to the National Grid.

 

Councillor Dave Taylor, spoke in objection to the application as a Ward Member for Fishergate.  He raised concerns regarding the impact of increased traffic, in a narrow cul-de-sac and close to a primary school.  There was the potential for increased congestion from delivery vehicles and no provision have been made for parking.

 

He confirmed that he felt that student accommodation should have been built on university land.  He also noted the shortage of accommodation for students within the city.

 

Cllr Pete Kilbane, spoke in objection to the application as a Ward Member for Micklegate.  He raised concerns about the rise of short hold tenancies, temporary accommodation and short-term holiday lets within the city.  He underlined that the application removed a community facility and cultural asset.

 

In response to questions, he noted that the city’s emerging Local Plan sought to protect local facilities and applications should not be approved unless they add to or replace community and cultural facilities.

 

Stephanie Leeman spoke in objection on behalf of the Fishergate House and Fishergate Court residents as Director of the Fishergate House Management Company.  She raised concerns regarding access, servicing and suggested a change of the user group from students to everyone.  In response to Members queries, it was reported that parking was permitted down one side of the road and sightlines were not good when entering the highway.  She expressed a preference for a mixed user development.

 

Michelle Davies addressed the Committee in support of the application.  She spoke on behalf of the applicant and noted the benefits of the investment to the city, the efficient use of a brown field site and the future release of HMOs back into the housing market.  She also noted that the building had been empty for two years and that Mecca Bingo had declined to renew the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

71.

Alton Cars York Ltd, 3 James Street, York YO10 3WW [21/02164/FULM] pdf icon PDF 462 KB

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site for purpose-built student accommodation with up to 319 bedrooms, associated communal facilities, car parking and landscaping [Guildhall Ward]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a major full application from S Harrison Developments Ltd for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site for purpose-built student accommodation with up to 319 bedrooms, associated communal facilities, car parking and landscaping at Alton Cars York Ltd 3 James Street York YO10 3WW. 

 

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application.  The Case Officer then delivered an update to members covering the number of bedrooms in the clusters of student accommodation, the Travel Planning Assistance figure and the change to the site management condition, number 23. He also provided the updated comments from Highway Network Management.

 

Public Speakers

 

A Member spoke in objection to the application.  He highlighted that he was waiting for an Officer response regarding the number of HMOs that had come back to market in his ward area since the development of student letting accommodation.  He raised concerns regarding the overdevelopment of student rooms in the area and stated that there were 2,922 rooms within a 400m radius of the application.  He expressed concerns that the units were not well-designed or integrated and highlighted a need for affordable accommodation in the city for all residents of the city, not just students.

 

In response to questions from Members, he noted the NPPF guidance required a well-functioning design that added to the long term quality of the area.

 

Gavin Douglas, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He highlighted the relocation of the existing business on the site to more suitable commercial premises.  He noted that the company was an experienced developer and operator of student accommodation within the city and in Leeds.  He stated that the location was convenient to both Universities which provided sustainable accessibility.  

 

In response to questions from Members, the applicant gave the following answers:

·        There were 16 accessible rooms in the plans. 

·        A cycle space per resident was an overprovision at the expense of other facilities. The travel plan allowed for the monitoring of cycle provision.  There were 8 accessible cycle parking bays within the courtyard.  Improving cycling routes had been discussed with highways officers but there was not a problem at the specific location.

·        The social spaces were in the plans due to student demand and fostered shared experiences.

·        The landscaping had been designed to reflect the location of the site which was close to the conservation area. 

·        The parking issues were expected to resolve following the relocation of the business.

·        The study bedrooms were 12.5m2 and the studios were between 20 and 28m2.

·        Condition 4 covered the Construction Management Plan.

·        The expansion of York University is not only for students but also for research facilities.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Officers answered as follows:

·        There were not any size standards for student bedrooms.

·        Developments such as this one had regeneration benefits to the area and are therefore viewed positively by the council.

·        It was accepted that the universities currently provide sports provision.  It was possible  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page