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.

Councillor Jamieson-Ball declared a personal prejudicial interest in Plans items 4a (Proposed University Campus lying between Field Lane, Common Lane, A64 Trunk Road and Hull Road, York) as he had spoken at the Planning Inquiry regarding the outline permission and he left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.   

Councillor Pierce declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in Plans item 4a (Proposed University Campus lying between Field Lane, Common Lane, A64 Trunk Road and Hull Road, York) as a member of the Heslington East Community Forum and former member of staff and student of the University.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 20 November 2008.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 20 November 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 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 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 report of the Assistant Director (Planning and Sustainable Development), relating to the following planning application, outlining the proposal and relevant planning considerations and setting out the views and advice of consultees and officers.

Reserved matters application for the erection of an academic building (Computer Science Building) with access, cycle parking, disabled parking and landscaping, following previous approval of outline application 04/01700/OUT.  [Heslington Ward]

Members considered a major reserved matters application, submitted by the University of York, for the erection of an academic building with access, cycle parking, disabled parking and landscaping (Computer Science Building) following previous approval of outline application 04/01700/OUT.

Officers circulated an update relating to the following points:

• The Internal Drainage Board had no objections subject to the addition of a condition relating to the surface water drainage system;
• Amended plans had been received which omitted the windows to the wc’s, included additional cladding in lieu of curtain walling on two end stairwells and amended the shape of some of the windows near to the atrium;
• An amended list of plans would be required in Condition 1, if approval was granted;
• Highways had no objections subject to conditions relating to the provision of cycle parking facilities and of shower and changing facilities;
• Details of cycle parking provision in relation to staff, students and visitors;
• Confirmed that the planning application for the biomass boiler for the site would be submitted before the end of December 2008;
• In relation to the Highway comments it was reported that the new plan provided for additional cycle parking north of the Theatre, Film and Television Building (TFTV) and therefore no additional spaces were required;
• Comments from Urban Design in which they requested that all external plant was located to the rear of the glazed lantern stairwells away from the roof edge to ensure a crisp finish to the roof was maintained;
• The Landscape Architect had confirmed that the University were flexible on the provision of a more diverse range of apple species and were happy to review the mix via condition;
• Yorkshire Water had submitted an application for a foul pumping station to the west of the TFTV Building and details of the off site foul water transmission was known to Yorkshire Water.

Officers also circulated a sheet of revisions to the table, on page 36 of the report, detailing totals of the built development, which was being updated as the Heslington East development progressed. A booklet of 3D visualisations of the proposed building together with a landscape strategy plan were also circulated.

Representations in support of the application were received from the applicants Planning Consultant who confirmed that this was a key building in the Heslington East development. He stated that this would be a world class facility, which he felt would sit comfortably in its surroundings. He reported that details in relation to cycle parking, landscaping and the biomass boiler had now been confirmed and he requested the Committee to support the recommendation for approval.

Members questioned the following points:

• Details of the panels to be used in the elevations, which were described as fibrous cement panels produced in a range of colours and which would be subject to approval by the Local Planning Authority;
• The types of apple tree to be provided in the orchard.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and the following amended  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42a

This report requests that a draft appraisal of the Heslington Conservation Area is approved for public consultation.

Members considered a report, which set out the draft appraisal of the Heslington Conservation Area for approval for public consultation, including a list of consultees and a map of the consultation area. A copy of the leaflet, which summarised the appraisal findings and invited local residents to submit their views was circulated at the meeting.

Officers reminded Members that following approval of the planning application for the expansion of the university campus, by the Secretary of State, it had been perceived that the expansion might bring additional pressures to bear on the conservation area. In order to assist in protecting the special character and appearance of the area it was decided that a conservation area appraisal should be commissioned. This had been produced by a firm of independent conservation consultants to a brief produced by the City of York Council.

In answer to Members comments Officers confirmed that Conservation Areas had a legal status and that there were constraints on the wording to be used when compiling appraisals.

The Local Member requested that the proposed leaflet drop be extended to Common Lane/Langwith Lane, south of the village, which Officers confirmed would be undertaken. ^1.

Members congratulated Officers on the interesting well put together document and considered the following options whilst making a number of points, which they felt, would strengthen the document.

1 – approve the draft document for consultation purposes and to approve the method and range of consultation

2 – amend the draft document and/or change the method and range of the consultation process

3 – do not approve the draft document for consultation

RESOLVED:   (i) That subject to inclusion of the following points approval be given to the draft Heslington Village Conservation Area Appraisal, as proposed in Annex A, for use as a consultation document and approval given to the public consultation method proposed:

·        Acknowledge the planning approvals already given in relation to Heslington East and how they will affect the area;

·        Amplification of the references to the soft landscaping areas at the southern end of the village as significant areas in their own right;

·        Inclusion of additional information in relation to Heslington Hall and its context to Heslington East;

·        Amendment of Annex B to refer to Yorkshire Water rather than ‘Waterways’ and the inclusion of other Utilities in the Consultee List; ^2.

(ii)That the Assistant Director (Planning and Sustainable Development) in conjunction with the Chair and Vice Chair be delegated authority to agree the final wording of the appraisal. ^3.

REASON: (i) The document has been prepared in accordance with current guidance from English Heritage. It has adopted a rigorous approach to the assessment of the Heslington Conservation Area and as a consultation document it is clearly written and capable of being amended where required

 (ii) The boundary review has been carried out in accordance with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and it has adopted relevant criteria a set out in PPG 15 and also as described in the latest guidance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

This report proposes a number of revisions to the original brief and recommends that these be deposited for public consultation early in 2009.

Members considered a report, which detailed proposed revisions to the original 2006 Development Brief for the Terry’s Factory site, which it was proposed to deposit for public consultation in early 2009.

The 2006 Brief had set out the Council’s requirements and aspirations for the development of the site as an employment led, mixed use development with careful consideration being given to its landscape setting, conservation area status and listed buildings. Following refusal of planning permission in August for the site, it had been agreed that Officers would work in partnership with the developers and that the Development Brief should be re-examined to acknowledge changes in national, regional and local policies since 2006.

An updated Appendix 1 to the report, which included the full schedule of Officer revisions, had been circulated prior to the meeting. Copies of the full document, with tracked changes, were circulated at the meeting.

In answer to Members questions Officers confirmed that once approved the Brief would be fed into the Local Development Framework as a planning guidance document.

Consideration was given to the following options:

  1.    Approve the Revisions to the Development Brief, as proposed in this report, as the basis for public consultation and negotiation of a master planned approach to the re-development of the site and consideration of planning applications and listed building/ conservation area consent applications for the site.

2.     Do not approve the Revisions to the Development Brief, as revised, and request a new Development Brief is drafted with an alternative approach.

RESOLVED:    (i) That subject to incorporation of the following points approval be given to the December 2008 revisions to the 2006 Terry’s Development Brief for the purposes of public consultation in January 2009:

·              Inclusion in the vision and objectives section of   reference to good quality housing;

·              Inclusion of the need for planning applications to meet the principles of  ‘Secured by Design’;

·              Use of plain English, in particular in Paragraph 8.17 relating to open space;

·              Include reference to work being undertaken in  relation to the Council motion to promote a Bishopthorpe Relief Road. ^1.

(ii)         That the Assistant Director (Planning and Sustainable Development) in conjunction with the Chair and Vice Chair be delegated authority to agree the final wording of the development brief. ^2.

REASONS:    (i) The redevelopment of the site is an important opportunity support the York economy.  An up-to-date Development Brief is considered the most appropriate approach for the Council to set out a vision, objectives and clear guidance for a new sustainable employment led mixed-use development to create a community of complementary uses.

The conservation importance and prominent setting of the site require detailed consideration and an up-to-date Development Brief is considered the most appropriate approach for the Council to set out the key considerations for the site and requirements of potential developers.

(ii) To ensure that the wording of the Development Brief is in line with the Committee’s comments.