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.

Members were invited to declare at this point in the meeting any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda.

Officers clarified for Members details of the Code of Conduct in relation to their personal and prejudicial interests in relation to sitting on licensing hearings and subsequent Planning Committee meetings and vice versa. The Head of Civic, Democratic and Legal Services had confirmed that if a Member had sat on a committee dealing with one aspect of a particular matter this in no way precluded him or her from sitting on another committee concerned with a different aspect of it. Provided that the member had clearly not indicated that he or she had pre-determined the issue to be considered, or was guilty of bias, and in no other way fell foul of the Code of Conduct in respect of it, that Member was fully entitled to participate in the determination of the matter.

Councillors Moore and Wiseman then declared personal non-prejudicial interests in agenda item 4b (Prudential House, 28-40 Blossom Street, York) as they had both sat on the licensing hearing for these premises.

Councillor Reid declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 4b (Prudential House, 28-40 Blossom Street, York) as in her previous role as Executive Member for City Strategy she had been invited to a meeting with developers of the property, which she had declined.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Planning Committee held on 24 June 2008.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 24 June 2008, 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 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 at the meeting 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 advice of consultees and officers.

Variation to condition 3 of outline permission (02/03741/Out) to amend the siting of the focal point building [Guildhall Ward].

Members considered a full application, submitted by Hungate (York) Regeneration Ltd, for the variation to condition 3 of outline permission (02/03741/OUT) to amend the siting of the focal point building.

The case Officer updated that paragraph 4.4 of the report, the final sentence required the insertion of the word “neither” prior to the words “the amount of community space”. Condition 3 in the report also required the addition of a reason in any approval. Officers also reported that if approved there would also be a need to vary the Section 106 agreement for this site.

Members questioned the concern expressed in paragraph 4.9 of the report by Highway Network Management that manoeuvring space for vehicles around the focal point building was tight. Officers stated that the separation between the buildings remained the same as the masterplan that had been granted outline consent.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to variation of the Section 106 agreement for this site and the imposition the conditions listed in the report.

REASON:                  In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal, subject to the conditions listed, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to:-

- Highway and pedestrian safety

- The  Central Historic Core Conservation and adjacent listed buildings

- Archaeological Deposits at the site

- Ecology at or adjacent to the site

- Residential amenity

- Affordable housing considerations

-  Air quality

- Noise and Construction Related Disturbance

- Security and designing out crime considerations

- Flooding and Drainage

- Sustainability 

- Impact on Local Education Provision

 As such the proposal complies with Policies H9, E4, R1 and E5 of the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan (Alteration No.3 Adopted 1995) and Policies GP1, GP3, GP4, GP6, GP11, HE2, HE9, HE10, T4, T13, T14, T20, H1, H2 a, H3 c, H4, H5, L1(c), C3, NE1, NE2, NE3, NE7, NE8, and ED4 of the City of York Local Plan Deposit Draft.

Change of use to 86 bedroom hotel with ground floor restaurant and construction of flat roof third floor and plant room. Alterations to elevations infilling of ground floor colonnade [Micklegate Ward].

Members considered a major full application, submitted by Whitbread and The Blossom Street Venture, for the change of use to 86 bedroom hotel with ground floor restaurant and construction of flat roof third floor and plant room with alterations to elevations and infilling of the ground floor colonnade.

Officers referred to additional letters and information received since the report had been published, copies of which had been circulated at the meeting:

• york-england.com, informing Members of office space available within the immediate locality of the railway station and within the city centre at Hudson House, Albion Wharf, West Offices and Grays Wharf. Members were asked to think carefully about future supply of office stock to ensure it met the needs of York’s economy;
• Visit York, providing additional information and welcoming this application for hotel investment. They agreed that future potential of the site was finely balanced but that the proposed investment was an attractive proposition in view of the current economic climate;
• Whitbread, detailing a number of factors, which they wished the Planning Committee to consider when determining the application. These included
  • the proposal guaranteeing 50 new jobs,
  • that demand for office space had fallen due to the current economic climate,
  • the proposal would provide investment in the Micklegate Conservation Area,
  • York needed to rely on tourism as a key local industry during the economic downturn,
  • The scheme would provide 86 new rooms 65 of which would be large family rooms,
  • That the application was supported by the Yorkshire Tourist Board and Visit York.

Officers updated that if the application was refused, as recommended, an amendment was required to Reason 1. The first line of the second paragraph required the removal of the reference to “Section 6” of the Regional Spatial Strategy and its replacement with “Policy E5”. Officers confirmed that the Regional Spatial Strategy was part of the development plan for York and that Policy E5 would give greater support to the refusal.

Representations were received in support from the applicant’s agent, who requested the Committee to support the application to bring the building back into use. She stated that a shortage of family accommodation had been identified by York Tourism Bureau and that the change of use to a hotel would benefit the local economy with visitor spending.

Representations, also in support of the application, were received from the developer, who referred to the present economic climate and the need to react quickly at this opportunity to create employment. He confirmed that if approval was granted that work would commence immediately on the scheme. He confirmed that the cost of upgrading the building as offices was a major issue as floor to ceiling heights made it impossible to incorporate all the technical equipment to provide Grade A office space.   He requested Members to balance the economic effect of refusal against immediate new employment.

Officers confirmed that york-england.com had received three enquiries regarding office accommodation in the city centre. They reported that the second stage of the Councils Employment Land  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16b

Reserved matters application for the landscaping of the western part of the site including reprofiling of ground levels, creation of lake planting and construction of weirs, footpaths and cycleways following outline application 04/01700/OUT for development of a university campus [Heslington Ward].

Consideration was given to a major reserved matters application (13 weeks), submitted by the University of York, for the landscaping of the western part of the site including re-profiling of ground levels creation of lake planting and construction of weirs, footpaths and cycleways following outline application 04/01700/OUT for the development of a university campus.

Officers referred to the following updates, which had been circulated to Members at the meeting:

• Plan of buffer zone landscaping scheme;
• Revised draft conditions for the scheme;
• Email from the Crime Reduction Manager, Safer York Partnership expressing concerns relating to the proposed cycle route which were supported by the Architectural Liaison Officer, University security staff, North Yorkshire Police and the Student Union;
• Email from York Natural Environment Panel/York Natural Environment Trust expressing concern that only general information was available for this reserved matters application; with very little detail which they felt would not achieve optimum results for wildlife. They requested the Committee to note their objections and to defer consideration of the application pending receipt of all information on the scheme.

Officers referred to the latest revised landscaping drawing, circulated at the meeting, and confirmed that the only changes appeared to be the addition of further trees and one of the woodland areas had been set back to accommodate a water easement.

Representations in objection to the proposals were received from a local resident and member of the University who stated that he felt insufficient was being done to protect wildlife on the site. He felt that these major landscaping works should be undertaken between October and January so as not to affect breeding birds and wildlife on site. He referred to wildlife injuries at the present University Lake caused by fishing lines and hooks and requested that a fishing ban be imposed over the whole University site.

Representations in support of the proposal were received from the applicant’s agent who confirmed that the application related to the first phase of landscaping over 30 hectares with this being the first lake. It was proposed to carry out the works over the school holidays so that any noisy operations did not affect pupils at Lord Deramore’s School adjacent to the site. He stated that they were in the process of providing details of their drainage proposals; regarding the comments of the Natural Environment Panel he confirmed that some points were covered in the scheme and that they would endeavour to alleviate others. He requested Members to support the proposals as this work required completion this year to coincide with the planting season and before the new campus opened.

It was reported that University security staff, the Safer York Partnership, Students Union and the Architectural Liaison Officer had raised concerns regarding a number of issues relating to the cycle route proposed through the site. The issues included potential offenders ability to commit crimes, anti social behaviour and the lack of natural surveillance.

Officers and the Chair expressed concern at the objections by the University to their own scheme  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16c

Removal of Condition 11, restricting minimum size of retail unit to 929 sq m (reference to 06/00338/GRG3) [Heworth Ward].

Members considered a full application, submitted by Keyland Gregory (Retail) Limited, for the removal of Condition 11, restricting the minimum size of retail unit to 929 sq m (reference 06/00338/GRG3).

An update was circulated to Members recommending the amendment of Condition 1 to refer to “any other plans, which may otherwise be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority” and listing all plans received and dates received.

Representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent who indicated that the application did not relate to changes to the exterior of the building or to changing the range of goods to be sold. He confirmed that the application was to amend the unit size only as some retailers did not require the additional mezzanine space proposed with these units.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to amendment of the Section 106 Agreement to refer to the variation of the application and subject to the conditions listed in the report and the following amended condition:

1.      The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans as originally submitted with planning application reference no: 06/00338/GRG3 and later amended by the revised drawings listed below and received on the date indicated, and any other plans which may otherwise be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Flood risk assessment received 9 February 2006.

Dwg No. H/06 P1 (White Young Green) Foss Islands Road junction details received 14 February 2006.

Dwg No. 3527-24-P100 (Watson Batty) Site Layout Revised Store Location received 17 July 2007.