Agenda and minutes

At this point, members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on this agenda.

At this point, members were asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they had in the business on this agenda.

Councillor Hyman declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 5 ‘Revised Development Brief for the Terry’s Factory site’ as he was a council representative on Science City York. He exercised his right to remain in the room and took part in the discussion.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meetings of the Planning Committee held on 16^th May 2006 and 24^th May 2006.

RESOLVED:            That the minutes of the meetings of the Planning Committee,

held on 16^th May 2006 and 24^th May 2006, be approved and signed 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 the day before the meeting. 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 Officer for the meeting, on the details at the foot of this agenda.

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 Committee.

This item invites Members to determine the following planning applications:

Members considered a schedule of reports of the Assistant Director (Planning and Sustainable Development), relating to the following planning applications, outlining the proposals and relevant policy considerations and setting out the views and the advice of consultees and officers.

Outline application for the erection of sheltered accommodation, an extension to the Elderly Mentally Frail unit, residential development, relocation of the existing bowling green and provision of a new access road and car parking.

Members considered an outline application, submitted by the Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution, for the erection of sheltered accommodation, extension to the Elderly Mentally Frail unit, residential development, relocation of the existing bowling green and provision of a new access road and car parking (revised scheme). (Ref: 05/0022/OUT)

Officers updated that an error had been made in informing neighbours about the site visit and committee date, and advised Members that it would not be appropriate to consider the application. Apologies were expressed to all concerned that the correct procedures had not been followed.

Officers also updated that the Applicant had submitted revised proposals and had asked for the plan to be substituted. Officers from Planning and Legal Services advised Members that it would be appropriate to defer the application, in order to allow for consultation on the revised proposal and for Officers to consider the changes and revise the report.

Some Members raised concerns that the Applicant had submitted revised proposals at a late stage before the meeting as this was unfair to objectors.

Members requested that it be noted that they raised concerns that the Applicant had submitted revised proposals at such a late stage. Members requested that a letter be written to the Agent for the Applicant requesting an explanation of their actions.

Members of the public who had registered to speak on the item all agreed to defer their right to speak until the application was considered again by the committee.

RESOLVED:             (i)            That the application be deferred to a future

meeting.

(ii)               That a letter be written to the Agent for the Applicant requesting an explanation for the submission of revised proposals, at such a late stage before the meeting.

REASON:                  To ensure full consultation on the revisions submitted by the Applicant.

Demolition of university staff houses and erection of six student residences, comprising 3 x three storey and 3 x four storey blocks with associated utility building, parking and landscaping.

Members considered a full major application, submitted by University of York, for demolition of university staff houses and erection of six student residences, comprising of 3 x three storey and 3 x four storey blocks with an  associated utility building, parking and landscaping (revised scheme). (Ref: 06/00826/FULM)

Officers updated that an error had been made in informing neighbours about the site visit and committee date, and advised Members that it would not be appropriate to consider the application. Apologies were expressed to all concerned that the correct procedures had not been followed.

RESOLVED:             That the application be deferred to a future meeting.

REASON:                  To ensure the correct procedures are followed.

This report describes the consultation process carried out on the draft development brief for the Terry’s Factory Site, presents a revised brief which had been compiled in response to the concerns and suggestions raised and seeks its approval as draft supplementary planning guidance to the Development Control Local Plan.

This report described the consultation process carried out on the draft development brief for the Terry’s Factory Site. It presented a revised brief which had been compiled in response to the concerns and suggestions raised, and sought its approval as draft supplementary planning guidance to the Development Control Local Plan.

Angela Michel and Paul Robinson spoke as representatives of The Stables Project, on the community based proposals.

Angela Michel spoke about the educational project which catered for 14 pupils who were outside mainstream education for a wide range of reasons. The project worked with pupils on their individual development. There was local community involvement, and the work space could be hired. The project had applied for funding from the Arts Council as the project did not have enough work space.

Paul Robinson outlined how the project met the objectives of the Brief and provided arts and cultural activities for adults and children. If the project was on the site there would be a useful educational link with Science City York, in terms of IT and industry. The project had been recognised by a range of council departments, and would provide jobs. The proposal included a café which would be the central focus of the learning centre.

Officers reported that the scheme was welcomed in terms of the development brief, and Officers could potentially facilitate dialogue with the developer.

Members discussed the following:

• The percentage of the site to be dedicated to Science City York had not been included. The emphasis was to be on Science City York, but the final percentage depended on the master planning process. At this stage Officers did not want to be prescriptive.
• Members raised that residents had made representation against a hotel venue on the site. Officer reported that there had been a mixed response to this proposal and the Tourism Bureau had set out evidence of a need for this.
• There was a desire for Knavesmire Primary School to gain a sports site. It was reported that on pg124 of the agenda, a paragraph had been added in respect of this, and would be discussed with the developer.
• It was raised that removal of the sentence ‘The involvement of the local community in identifying needs is therefore important’ on pg123, paragraph 8.2, weakened community involvement. It was reported that Officers were in a position to encourage the developer but not stipulate terms of the development.
• Members raised that there were a large number of comments relating to transport, and traffic on Bishopthorpe Road, yet Officers had not suggested changes in light of these comments. It was reported that these issues could not be addressed as it was not known exactly what the issues would be. A Traffic Assessment would be carried out in due course and Officers would then consider traffic related comments.
• It was requested that Officers check that the fountain referred to on pg 134 of the consultation responses (Background paper), did in fact have no heritage value.
• The Brief mentioned that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Chair informed Members that an additional Planning Committee meeting had been arranged to consider the application for Bleachfield. Details of the site visit and meeting were as follows:

Site Visit:            Wednesday 5^th July 2006, 1.30pm (meet at Memorial Gardens)

Committee:            Thursday 6^th July 2006, 4.30pm, Council Chamber