Agenda and minutes

The following sites were inspected before the meeting:

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

Members were invited to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on the agenda.

Cllr Moore declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Plans Item 4a (York College of Further and Higher Education) as a volunteer of St Leonards Hospice, and took no part in the discussion or the decision thereon.

Cllr D’Agorne declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4a and 4b (York College of Further and Higher Education) as an employee of York College.   

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 30 August 2007 and 27 September 2007.

RESOLVED :That the minutes of the meetings held on 30 August 2007 and 27 September 2007 be approved and signed by the Chair 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 working 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 this 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 advice of consultees and officers.

Reserved matters application for residential development comprising 360 dwellings after demolition of existing college (Resubmission)

Members considered a major reserved matters application, submitted by George Wimpey Ltd, Shepherd Homes Ltd and Magna Holding Ltd, for residential development comprising 360 dwellings after demolition of existing college (resubmission).

Officers updated on drainage, that as a result of the comments of the Environment Agency a revised drawing had been submitted showing an additional length of swale alongside plot 148, adjacent to the northern boundary of the site, and that the remainder of this boundary would be piped in as originally proposed. There were no objections from the Environment Agency and the Council on these revised drainage proposals.

Officers also updated that the affordable housing plan required by the Section 106 agreement had been completed, and that following on from the site visit to view the proposals from St Leonards Hospice the applicant had agreed to delete the landscaped bund from alongside the boundary with the hospice, and erect an acoustic fence along this length of the southern boundary of the site.

Officers also updated on proposed amendments to the following if Members were minded to approve the application, relating to condition 6, 13, 15, and 20.

Representations were received in objection to the proposals from a resident of Lycett Road. He raised issues regarding drainage and flooding, and distributed photographs to Members showing flooding.

Representations were received in objection to the proposals from a resident of Lycett Road, raising issues regarding loss of privacy relating to the angle of the proposed dwellings, close proximity to existing dwellings, height of the proposed dwellings and drainage and flooding.

Representations were received in objection to the proposals from a resident of Middlethorpe Drive relating to the fact that the majority of dwellings are three-storey and the loss of trees. He also requested that the wall from 157 Tadcaster Road along the northern boundary along Middlethorpe Drive be retained through a planning condition.

Representations were received in support of the application from the agent for the applicant relating to drainage and utilisation of the swale, heights of the proposed dwellings, the removal of the bunds and an acoustic fence for the hospice boundary, and that they would accept a boundary treatment condition.

Cllr Moore spoke from the floor on behalf of St Leonards Hospice, regarding the boundary of St Leonards Hospice and the proposed dwellings, car movements, fencing and planting type for the boundary, and lighting for the cycle/footpath.

Cllr Holvey spoke as Ward Councillor, and stated that not all the issues that had been raised previously when the item was deferred had been addressed. These related to flooding, three-storey dwellings, and privacy for Lycett Road residents. He stated that the application should be refused but if Members were minded to approve the application he would request that the conditions be added regarding boundary treatment, retention of the wall from 157 Tadcaster Road along the whole of the northern boundary with Middlethorpe Drive,consultation with the Police Architectural Liaison Officer regarding alleyways, and ownership of the ditches.

Members discussed general boundary issues,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30a

Use of land to south east of site as public open space including provision of footpaths and associated landscaping and drainage works (resubmission)

Members considered a full application, submitted by George Wimpey Ltd, Shepherd Homes Ltd and Magna Holdings Ltd, for the use of land to south east of site as public open space including provision of footpaths and associated landscaping and drainage works (resubmission).

RESOLVED :That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

REASON :                 The proposal, subject to the conditions outlined in the report, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to appropriateness of the proposed layout, internal layout of the open space, and drainage issues, and as such complies with Policy L1c of the City of York Local Plan Deposit Draft.

Outline application for residential development comprising houses and apartments after demolition of existing warehouse and plant.

Members considered a major outline application, submitted by Tarmac Ltd and Blackwell Ltd, for residential development comprising houses and apartments after demolition of existing warehouse and plant.

Officers updated that written representations had been received from Councillors Alexander and Bowgett, Ward Councillors. They stated that they objected to the planning application, in relation to the North West Area Action Plan, access to the site and the burden on Millthorpe School.

Officers also updated that if Members were minded to approve the application they would recommend an additional condition to limit the application to 80 residential units. Copies of illustrative plans were distributed for Members information. 

Representations were received in objection to the application from a resident of Ouseacres. He stated that the proposals would lead to overshadowing, light pollution and would have an environmental impact on the area. He also raised issues regarding road safety issues, and the traffic assessment carried out.

Representations were received in objection to the application from a resident of Prior Walk, regarding the proposals for and location of green areas. He stated that the areas would attract teenagers and would affect the privacy of residents.

Representations were received from the agent for the applicant in support of the proposals. He stated that the report deals with any objections that have been raised. With regard to traffic a full traffic assessment had been submitted, showing the proposals would have no material impact on traffic levels. The outline application was supported by Officers and the affordable housing provision had been increased to 37.5%.

Members discussed the implications with regard to York North West/York Central Area Action Plan, and were informed by the council’s legal officer that refusal on prematurity grounds would not be appropriate in this case.

Members discussed height of the proposed dwellings, access and highway issues, issues relating to the traffic assessment carried out, and noise and vibration from the railway line.

RESOLVED :That the application be approved subject to the a Section 106 agreement which refers to the provision of an on site LEAP approved children's play area, on site amenity space, affordable housing provision and education contribution, and subject to the conditions and informatives outlined in the report, and the following additional conditions and informatives :

                                    31        Construction work shall not begin until a written scheme for protecting the proposed noise sensitive development from noise has been submitted to and approved in writing  by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall ensure that the noise level in the gardens of the proposed properties shall not exceed 50 dB LAeq (16 hour) between 0700 hours and 2300 hours and all works which form part of this scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied.

                                    Reason:          In the interest of the amenity of the future residents of the development

32Prior to commencement of  the development, an Acoustic Noise and Vibration survey shall be undertaken on the likely effects of vibration from rail traffic on the proposed residential development.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30c

Erection of six storey 160 bedroom 4 star hotel (revised scheme to that approved under 03/04075/GRG4).

Members considered a major full application, submitted by Golden Tulip Ltd, for the erection of a six storey 160 bedroom 4 star hotel (revised scheme to that approved under 03/04075/GRG4).

Officers clarified the differences in the hotel dimensions in relation to the approved and the proposed scheme:

Approved scheme :

Condition on the approved scheme restricts the height of the building to 22.5 metres

Overall height of approved building to the top of the atrium 21.920 metres

Predominant ridge height 20.5 metres

Proposed scheme :

Atrium deleted. Predominant ridge height 21.900 metres 

Height condition (condition 34) to be amended to say 21.9 metres instead of 22.5 metres as in approved scheme

Representations were received from the agent for the applicant in support of the application. She stated that the issues relating to the star rating was outside of the planning remit. The rooms would still be of a generous size and the outer rooms would have the same views as the approved scheme. The roof terrace would no longer be part of the scheme, and the hotel would still be of high quality. Written representations were also distributed to Members from the agent for the applicant giving details of the proposals in terms of the approved and the proposed scheme.

Representations were received from Cllr Scott in objection to the application. He stated that the original permission granted was for a 4* or 5* hotel, and the proposals now did not include a swimming pool or roof terrace. The hotel would be 3* at the most and there would be an increase in the number of bedrooms. He stated that the application should be refused.

Members discussed  the increase in the number of bedrooms and the size of these, and the types of bedrooms e.g. number of suites. With regard to the star rating of the proposed development Members were informed that star rating is not a planning matter. Members further discussed green travel plans for employees, materials to be used, height of elevations and the relativity to the City Walls. Members also discussed the possible deferral of the application in relation to requiring further detail to enable them to make a decision regarding  materials to be used and the photo montage available, and  the design of the proposal. They also raised concerns regarding the detail included in the committee report.

RESOLVED :            That the application be deferred.

REASON :                 (i)         For the applicant to review the design of the      proposal in  light of Members comments;

(ii)               For the applicant to provide further detail of the materials to be used;

(iii)             For the applicant to provide more adequate pictorial representations of the proposals;

(iv)              For Members concerns regarding the committee report to be addressed.   

Extensions to existing sports centre to provide swimming pool and associated facilities including additional car parking and associated plant. New canopy to existing sports centre entrance.

Members considered a general regulations 3 application, submitted by City of York Council, for the extension to existing sports centre to provide swimming pool and associated facilities including additional car parking and associated plant, and new canopy to existing sports centre entrance.

Officers updated that the disabled parking details had been modified, and that if Members were minded to approve the application that condition 8 (standard highway condition 19) would be replaced with standard highway condition 18.

Members discussed the target dates for completion of the new pool and closure of the Edmund Wilson pool, capacity of the viewing gallery, usage of the pool by the public and school swimming, and parking.

RESOLVED :That the application be approved under General Regulations 3 Council Development subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to the following amendment :

Condition 8:

Prior to the development commencing details of the cycle parking areas, including means of enclosure, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The building shall not be occupied until the cycle parking areas and means of enclosure have been provided within the site in accordance with such approved details, and these areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking of cycles.

Reason:  To promote use of cycles thereby reducing congestion on the adjacent roads and in the interests of the amenity of neighbours.

REASON :                 The proposal, subject to the conditions listed above and in the report, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to residential and visual amenity, highway safety, sustainability and design . As such the proposal complies with Policies R1 and R9   of  the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan (Alteration No.3 Adopted 1995) and Policies ED1,ED11,GP1,L1a,ED3 and GP4a  of the City of York Local Plan Deposit Draft.