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.

Councillor Hudson declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Plans Item 4a (Hungate Development Site, Hungate, York) as his firm had done some work in connection with this development.

Councillor D’Agorne declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 5 (York College: Request for temporary variation of terms of Section 106 agreement, regarding provision of sports facilities.) as he was an employee of York College.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 25 October 2007.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 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 the this committee.

This item invites Members to determine the following planning application:

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 Phase 2 – erection of five storey development comprising 154 residential units including car parking and 7 ground floor commercial units (1151 sq m) – to which outline planning permission 02/03741/OUT dated 18/07/06 relates.

Members considered a major reserved matters application submitted by Hungate (York) Regeneration Ltd for Phase II of the development; the erection of a five storey development comprising 154 residential units including car parking and seven ground floor commercial units (1151 sqm) – to which outline planning permission 02/03741/OUT dated 18.07.06 relates.

The Officer updated the following paragraphs of the committee report:

Paragraph 4.7:                                  Canalisation should read canyonisation

Paragraph 4.27:                                The amount of affordable housing was revised after Phase I, it was reduced by 2 units down to 144 (87 rented and 57 for discounted sale). The outstanding affordable units will all be 1 and 2 bedrooms.

Paragraphs 4.37-4.38:                     The 15% figure for excellent homes applies to the whole site and not each phase.

A revised Ecological Management Plan had been received and meetings would be held with the York Natural Environment Trust (YNET), Foss Society, Local Planning Authority (LPA) and the Applicants regarding proposals to stabilise the river wall.

The Officer reminded the Committee that conditions 12 and 17 of the outline application required details of cycle parking and an interim travel plan to be agreed before development of Phase II commences.

Representations were received from the architect who said that the many of the principals of what the project would be like architecturally had already been agreed. There was an increase in proposed commercial premises alongside the River Foss and less residential in this area. This was to try and encourage an active riverfront environment.

Members asked the architect what the split of residential units were and he responded that there would be 5 studio apartments, 32 one bedroom apartments, 104 two bedroom apartments and 13 three bedroom apartments.

Some Members felt that the studio apartments were too small. The architect felt that in terms of balance of size of accommodation, five studio apartments were not inappropriate. There would be a small demand for the smaller properties. Members discussed the storage space for commercial recycling and felt that it was too small. The architect felt that it would be possible to improve this but it would also depend on the frequency of the collection service.

Members discussed the following:

·        Whether the proposed development had a unique identity

·        Concerns regarding the practical use of the courtyards and shared amenity space

·        The possibility of using the roof areas (for clothes drying areas)

·        Concerns regarding the safety of the underground parking areas

·        Concerns that there will be too few cycle parking facilities

·        The need to get the planting correct

·        The smallness of the studio apartments

·        The commercial premises and the storage of the restaurant’s tables and chair

·        Concerns regarding the operating hours of the restaurants

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and the following amended and additional conditions:

                                    Condition 2

Large scale details of the items listed below shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development and the works shall be carried  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35a

This report presents a request from York College for a temporary variation in the terms of the Section 106 Agreement relating to the College development.  The variation sought concerns the availability for the community of the College's new sports facilities.  The request is a consequence of the College’s response to development opportunities which have the potential to result in significantly enhanced facilities.  The report recommends agreement to the request, because of potential benefits for community sports facilities in the long run.

Members considered a report that presented a request from York College for a temporary variation in the terms of the Section 106 Agreement relating to the College development. The variation sought concerns the availability for the community of the College’s new sports facilities. The request is a consequence of the College’s response to development opportunities which have the potential to result in significantly enhanced facilities. The report recommends agreement to the request, because of potential benefits for community sports facilities in the long run.

Officers circulated a plan (attached as an annex to these minutes) outlining the York College Playing Fields. The plan summarises the main issues to be resolved in the provision and siting of the potential three extra pitches and facilities from a Partnership Scheme. Officers reported that it may be possible to upgrade the pitches and changing facilities at All Saints’ School if the Partnership Scheme was successful and said that discussions would take place with All Saints regarding this.

Representations were received from a representative of York College who reaffirmed the college’s commitment to completing the facilities. However, the College now had the opportunity to significantly enhance the proposed sports facilities through a partnership agreement. This would cause a temporary delay for a maximum of two years but they would endeavour to facilitate things sooner if possible.

Members asked whether the facilities would be in place by 2009 or whether it would just be the Partnership Agreement in place. Officers responded that it would be the facilities in place. Members asked what would happen if the Partnership Agreement failed and Officers responded that the Section 106 Agreement would be reinstated.

Members considered the following options:

Option 1                    To decline the College’s request for a temporary variation to the Section 106 Agreement and require the Multi-use Games Area (MUGA) and 2 pitches to be made available for shared College and community use as soon as practicable.

Option 2                    To agree to the College’s request for a temporary variation to the Section 106 Agreement, as set out in the table at paragraph 9 of the report; that is to delay community access to the MUGA and the 2 pitches until September 2009 at the latest, to allow negotiations to continue for enhanced sports facilities.

RESOLVED:             Members agreed the College’s proposed variation to the Section 106 Agreement (Option 2).

REASON:                  To enable the negotiations for a partnership scheme, which would bring in extensive sports funding, to be completed. If successful, a significantly wider and enhanced range of sports facilities would be created for the community, over and above the facilities originally envisaged in relation to the college development.

                                    It is believed that the delay to September 2009 in providing the MUGA and 2 grass pitches would cause only limited inconvenience for community sport, bearing in mind the potential benefits to be gained; including 3 extra pitches, changing facilities, a soccer team based at the site and community outreach work.

The purpose of this report is to seek approval from Members to use the Interim Planning Statement (IPS) on Sustainable Design and Construction (attached at Annex A of this report) for Development Control Purposes. (Please note that this IPS was formally referred to as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) but new requirements of the planning system meant that a change in title was required).

Members considered a report that sought their approval to use the Interim Planning Statement (IPS) on Sustainable Design and Construction (attached at Annex A of the report) for Development Control purposes. (The IPS was formally referred to as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) but new requirements of the planning system meant that a change in title was required).

The IPS has been produced to support Policy GP4a (Sustainability) of the Local Plan. Policy GP4a seeks to ensure that all new development takes account of sustainability issues by requiring applicants to submit a sustainability statement to accompany their proposals. The IPS provides further guidance to applicants on what is expected from them as part of preparing a sustainability statement.

The main change to the IPS was the inclusion of the ‘Code for Sustainable Homes’ standards which has replaced the BREEAM Eco-Homes standard for residential development. The Code for Sustainable Homes uses a sustainability rating system indicated by stars to communicate the overall sustainability performance of a home. Code 1* is the lowest level and 6****** is the highest. A Code 2** is thought to be the equivalent to an Eco-Homes standard of  ‘very good’

Members of the Committee felt that a minimum of 3*** should be sought for new residential development within the city.

An amendment was proposed and seconded to adopt the code for sustainable homes level 3***.  The amendment was agreed.

Members discussed the questionnaire for domestic extensions and felt that the questions needed to be open rather than closed and some of the questions needed rewording for clarity.

Members were presented with the following options:

Option 1                                To approve the IPS for Development Control purposes to support Policy GP4a

Option 2                                To seek amendments to the IPS through recommendations of Planning Committee

Option 3                                To defer the IS and request further work from Officers

RESOLVED:                         That Members agreed:

·              To approve the IPS: Sustainable Design and Construction document for the purpose of Development Control to support the Local Plan Policy GP4a

·              That the Policy be amended to reflect the following amendment:

o             To adopt the code for sustainable homes level 3***

·              That the making of any incidental changes or other changes necessary as a result of the recommendations of the Planning Committee, are delegated to the Director of City Strategy in consultation with the Executive Member and Opposition Spokesperson for City Strategy and the Chair of the Planning Committee

REASON:                              To implement GP4a of the Draft Local Plan incorporating the fourth set of changes and so the report can be published for Development Control purposes.