Agenda and minutes

At this point in the meeting, Members are asked to declare:

·        any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests

·        any prejudicial interests or

·        any disclosable pecuniary interests

which they may have in respect of business on this agenda

At this point in the meeting, Members were asked to declare any personal, prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests they might have in the business on the agenda.

Councillor McIlveen declared a personal interest as a York Residential Landlord Association member and as a landlord for a University student.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 25th October 2012.

RESOLVED:                That the minutes of the last meeting held on 25^th October 2012 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 on Wednesday 21^st November 2012. 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.

Members considered the reports of the Assistant Director (City Development and Sustainability) relating to the following planning applications, which outlined the proposals and relevant planning considerations and set out the views of the consultees and officers.

A Major Full Application for the demolition of existing car showroom and erection of 3, 4 and 5 storey high blocks of student accommodation comprising 244 bedrooms within 43 clusters together with associated external works. [Fishergate Ward] [Site Visit].

Members considered a major full application, submitted by Mr. Richard Lockey, for the demolition of an existing car showroom and the erection of 3, 4 and 5 storey high blocks of student accommodation comprising of 244 bedrooms within 43 clusters together with associated external works.

Officers circulated a Committee update (a full copy of which has been published with the online agenda for the meeting) the main points of which were:

·        Correction at paragraph 1.2 which should read ‘grade 1 listed building and scheduled ancient monument not area of archaeological importance.

·        An amended plan had been received in response to concerns about the design.

·        There had been 4 further objection letters following re-consultation on the original plans.

·        Details of an additional condition regarding mechanical ventilation to address air quality concerns.

·        Information on the Statement of Community Involvement and a possible Operational Management Statement.

Members then went on to question the officers on a number of points including:

·        The provision of air quality management and whether the suggested condition would form a basis for further negotiation with the applicant. Officers confirmed this to be the case.

·        The noise associated with mechanical air quality management and if the noise was considered a problem for potential tenants.

·        Confirmation that the height of the development would not cause residents of Tannery Mews to be overlooked.

·        Clarification of how the £48k open space provision would be spent.

Councillor Taylor spoke as Ward Councillor. He advised that he had mixed views about the scheme. He confirmed he was happy to see a sustainable development but had concerns regarding the proximity of the student blocks to Alms Houses and Tannery Mews although he acknowledged that there had been some improvements made to the mass of the proposed buildings. The key document would be the Management Plan and he welcomed the suggestion of 24 hour management and car park control.

Councillor Warters spoke in objection to the scheme. He advised that there is already a large student accommodation block on Hull Road at the old Dairy site and he objected to the principle of any further off campus site which allows the University to escape its obligations to provide on site accommodation. He felt that the condition of such buildings deteriorates quickly and urged the applicant to amend the scheme to provide flats for the residents of York. If approved he asked that similar conditions to that of the dairy site be considered.

The applicants agent spoke in support of the scheme, in particular to highlight the changes made to address the Planning Inspectors concerns. He advised that the open space provision had been increased by 20% and there had been a reduction in bed spaces. The proposed buildings are to be set back further as to not detract from the setting of St. Lawrence Church.

Following further discussion, Members agreed that the scheme was an improvement on the previous submission and welcomed the addition of accommodation for students which is in addition to that being provided  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28a

A reserved matters application for details of siting, design, external appearance and landscaping of 346 dwellings (phases 3 and 4) granted under outline permission 03/02709/OUT. [Osbaldwick Ward] [Site Visit].

Consideration was given to a major reserved matters application by the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust for details of siting, design, external appearance and landscaping of 346 dwellings (phases 3 and 4) granted under outline permission 03/02709/OUT.

Officers presented a Committee update, full details of which have been published online with the agenda for the meeting, the main points of which were:

·        Clarification regarding housing numbers.

·        Letters received further to the Officer’s report.

·        A letter had been received from the agent with accompanying drawings submitted in respect of plots 282/283 and 87/88.

·        An amendment to condition 4.

·        Details of additional conditions relating to the shared cycle/pedestrian route linking to Sustrans cycle route, ground levels around an Oak tree and the boundary enclosure along the eastern boundary.

Tom Hughes had registered to speak on behalf of Meadlands Area Residents Association. A letter was distributed which formed the basis of his objections. He advised that residents have 3 main areas of concern which are the impact of the development upon the water table, ground water retention and drainage, the determination of the finished ground height of new properties compared to adjacent Meadlands properties and the proximity of properties on the new development to the adjacent Meadlands properties. He asked that a professional assessment or report is undertaken in response to residents fears before the development is completed and hoped that residents concerns would be listened to.

Nigel Ingram spoke on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust. He advised that amendments to the scheme had been made in response to concerns raised, in particular introducing dwellings into some garage courts to create a Mews style and plans to encourage cycle use and car sharing. The Trust had also looked into the possibility of an electric shuttle bus service.

Councillor Warters spoke as Ward Member. He expressed his disappointment that there was to be no provision for the relocation of open space in the area and that the Sustrans cycle track would be the only remaining open space for residents. He emphasised the importance of the boundary hedge and agreed to it being conditioned. He pointed out that there is only 18 metres separation between a Meadlands dwelling and the property at 34 Derwenthorpe and asked that consideration be given to the privacy of the Meadlands resident. Concerns still exist with regard to the water table and he asked that the protection be given to existing trees as per condition 5.

Members went on to question a number of points including:

·        Rear parking courts and related security issues. It was confirmed that any remaining were due to no other possible solution.

·        The difference between lifetime homes and wheelchair accessible homes. The difference was explained by Mr. Ingram.

·        Clarification on the monitoring that is being undertaken for groundwater levels. This was provided by Mr. Ingram

·        Further details on the eastern boundary to the site. Arrangements for the proposed management of theboundary hedge were explained.

Following further discussion Members approved the application.

RESOLVED:That the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28b