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.

In relation to agenda item 4a Burnholme Community Hub, Mossdale Avenue, York YO31 0HA [20/01916/OUTM], Cllr Rowley declared a personal non-prejudicial interest as a school governor at the school that agreed to release the land the application was on. Cllr D’Agorne declared a non-prejudicial interest as the council was the applicant and he was a member of the Executive. Cllr Douglas also declared a non-prejudicial interest as a Ward Councillor for that ward.

There were no further declarations of interest.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Planning Committee held on 24 February 2021 and 4 March 2021.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the last meeting held on 4 March 2021 be approved and then signed by the Chair as a correct record at a later date subject to the reason for moving deferral of the application in minute 21a to ‘ Cllr Warters then moved and Cllr Craghill seconded refusal on the grounds of the Condition 4 being changed from 28 days occupancy (4 weeks) to 46 weeks occupancy by virtue of the 6 week closure period.’

Webcasting of Remote Public Meetings

Please note that, subject to available resources, this remote public meeting will be webcast including any registered public speakers who have given their permission. The remote public 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.

Erection of 83no. dwellings (use class C3) with associated parking, landscaping, access and ancillary works. No matters reserved except for the appearance, scale and internal layout of 5no. self-build plots in Terrace 5. [Heworth Ward]

Members considered a major outline application from City Of York Council for Erection of 83 dwellings (use class C3) with associated parking, landscaping, access and ancillary works. No matters reserved except for the appearance, scale and internal layout of 5no. self-build plots in Terrace 5 at Burnholme Community Hub, Mossdale Avenue, York YO31 0HA.

Officers provided an update noting a number of amendments and clarifications to the report. This included an amendment to affordable housing for 21 (not 25) affordable homes to be policy compliant. It was clarified that the) that the council would be required to maintain the gates opening out over the highway (as detailed in paragraph 5.21 of the committee report. There were also amendments to conditions 8 and 10. It was noted that the additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and recommendation were unchanged from the published report.

A presentation on the application was given, detailing the views from different access points, the proposed site location plan, house types and their elevations and site wide sections and 3D visuals. In response to Member questions, officers explained that:

·        The breakdown in the accommodation mix for wheelchair users related to different categories in the building regulations.

·        The plans marked out the disabled parking bays and they were located places nearest to accessible dwellings.

·        It was not known whether the owners of the self builds would park on their own land until their applications came forward.

·        The overspill parking concerns from highways officers was the reason for the second contribution in order to ensure that there could be double yellow lines/bollards where needed.

·        Condition 20 covered the works to Darnbrook Drive.

·        In terms of the draft Local Plan the development was classed as being in a suburban area.

·        The hours of working were included in the CEMP and it was anticipated that this would apply to the self builds also.

·        An update on affordable housing was given, as well as an outline of planning policy in relation to affordable housing.

·        The traffic survey looked at trips at peak times.

·        The council would try to achieve the highway on Mossdale Avenue being brought to an adoptable standard.

·        The landscaping of three could be for the lifetime of the development.

Public Speakers

Charlie Linfoot-King, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. He explained that the road network was not suitable for development, there were issues around road safety as there was no crossing provided. There was also damage caused to the road and pollution, and the development was on an already compact housing estate. He was asked and explained that a crossing on Bad Bargain Lane was needed to mitigate the traffic problems.

Paul Waind, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. He suggested that consultation had not been carried out correctly. He noted that the site was an opportunity to protect green space. He explained that the plans showed a 23m high building 1m away from his property and he suggested that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Erection of a 3 and 3.5 storey student accommodation block (providing 85 student rooms) following demolition of existing buildings. [Fishergate Ward]

Members considered a full application from KMRE Group (Church Fenton) Limited for the erection of a 3 and 3.5 storey student accommodation block (providing 85 student rooms) following demolition of existing buildings at Plumbase, Waterloo House, Fawcett Street, York YO10 4AH.

Officers provided an update noting that the scheme had 86 student rooms, not 85 as per the committee report. Details were given on updated conditions 11, 18 20, 21 and additional conditions related to servicing within the site and removal of a redundant crossing. It was noted that theadditional information had been assessed and the planning balance and recommendation were unchanged from the published report.

A presentation on the application was given, detailing the site location plan, existing buildings, the streetview of the existing builing and city walls, the proposed site plan, elevations, cycle and bin storage and sections.

In response to Member questions, officers confirmed that:

·        The site could provide 60 cycle spaces.

·        The policy was for archaeological findings to be recorded and excavated if necessary.

·        The widening of the footpath was where the building was.

·        And the backline from the terraced houses to Barbican Court had been secured to allow the option to widen the footpath.

·        There was two disabled parking spaces.

·        The site was considered a retail site not an employment site and therefore no consultation with the economic development team had taken place.

·        It was a shared access road and there were bollarded spaces which was where the disabled spaces would be located.

·        The student numbers were based on recent figures.

Public Speakers

Gary Swarbrick, Agent for the Applicant, spoke in support of the application. He explained that the applicant presented a multi million pound development and was a high quality development with 86 bed spaces. He noted that the site was within the historic core of the city and the applicant had worked with officers and other third parties to respond to their concerns and change the design. He added that the application promoted sustainable travel. In answer to Member questions he confirmed that:

·        The applicant would be happy to work with officers to maximise cycle parking.

·        He could not commit to changes to delivery times and would need to discuss this with his clients.

·        The plans for student arrivals.

·        There was kitchen facilities in each room.

·        It was known how many students could be in the communal areas.

[At 20:04 Cllr Waudby left the meeting as her internet was breaking up]

The intention was that the site would continue year round.

The shared facilities included a student work room and laundry.

Members then asked further questions of officers to which officers responded that:

·        Building regulations would be required for kitchen uses.

·        There was nothing in the plans to show that the amenity level was unacceptable.

·        Safety issues would be covered by building regulations. Fire regulations would be picked up as part of the building regulations application.

·        Changes to the extended hours for construction were in place until 13 May 2021.

·        The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26a