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 might have in the business on the agenda. None were declared.

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 advice of consultees and officers.

Reserved matters application for development of 622-bed college including access, disabled parking, cycle parking and landscaping, following outline application 04/01700/OUT for development of a university campus [Heslington Ward]

Members considered a Major Reserved Matters Application, submitted by the University of York, for the development of a 622 bed college including access, disabled parking, cycle parking and landscaping, following an outline application (04/01700/OUT) for the development of a university campus.

The case officer for the application reported that there were some revised conditions in relation to the application. These are detailed fully in the resolution below.

He also reported that, at the site visit, residents had expressed concerns regarding the scale and visual impact of the proposed buildings and staff parking.

Representations were received from the architect who said that this was a fantastic opportunity to create a successful university. The buildings were arranged to create a sense of community and the materials to be used would blend in with the surroundings.

Representations were also received from a representative of the university in relation to BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method). He felt that a very good BREEAM rating could be achieved. He also said that the university was preparing a lower energy strategy for the whole campus (including the present campus).

Representations were received from the applicant’s agent who suggested the following changes to the conditions:

·        In relation to revised conditions 2 and 5 the agent suggested that this should be prior to building works arising out of the ground rather than prior to building work taking place.

·        In relation to condition 12 the agent suggested changing this to prior to occupation rather than prior to development commencing and to change the wording to form two sentences.

·        In relation to condition 14 the agent suggested changing this to read prior to occupation rather than prior to the commencement of development.

She also stated that the university was working to a very tight building timetable.

Representations were also received from the Ward Councillor for Heslington, Councillor Jamieson-Ball. He stated that this cluster of the development was the first on site and therefore would move the development from theory to reality. He did not feel that there was enough information regarding the design and suggested that the details of the materials to be used be delegated to the officer, Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee for determination. He also raised concerns regarding transport and movement between the two campuses and felt that short cuts across fields could cause damage to a protected area. He stated that the measures detailed in condition 10 relating to the Pedestrian Ribbon would be of considerable benefit to local residents as well.

Members discussed the revised conditions proposed by the case officer and the applicant’s agent. Members agreed to the agent’s amendments in relation to conditions 2 and 5 and stated that the final details in relation to these should be delegated to the Chair, Vice-Chair and opposition spokesperson. They agreed to the amendments in relation to condition 12 but said that condition 14 should remain as per the officer’s revision.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68a