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 pecuniary interests they may have in the business on the agenda. None were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 25^th July 2013.

Resolved:           That the minutes of the last meeting of Planning Committee held on 25^th July 2013 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 August 2013. 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 Councils Public Participation Scheme.

This item invites Members to determine the following planning applications:

External alterations to amalgamate five existing units (nos 3, 4, 5/6, 11 and 12) and create additional mezzanine floorspace to create two non food retail units; external alterations and variation of condition 3 of permission ref 3/66/650AK/OA - 3/61/207G/OA to subdivide Unit 16 (resubmission). [Huntington and New Earswick Ward]

Consideration was given to a major full application for external alterations to amalgamate five existing units (numbers 3, 4, 5/6, 11 and 12) and create additional mezzanine floorspace to create two non food retail units; external alterations and variation of condition 3 of permission ref 3/66/650AK/OA-3/61/207G/OA to subdivide Unit 16 (resubmission).

Officers circulated an update to the committee report, full details of which are attached to the online agenda for this meeting. The main points were as follows:

·        A variation to the recommendation to state that if approved, the application will need to be referred to the Secretary of State  due to the amount of additional floor space.

·        A variation to condition 7 to refer to the reconfiguration of Unit 16 to allow the current retailer to continue to operate.

·        Clarification of the obligation being recommended on page 34 of the report to clarify that the obligation can not require a specific operator to occupy a site.

Peter Brown, representing York Civic Trust spoke in objection to the scheme. He advised that collectively all shopping parks in York will have an impact on the City Centre and that the in his opinion, application failed on a number of aspects of planning policy.

Eric Hall had registered to speak on behalf of the applicant. He advised that the proposals would safeguard jobs at the shopping park and that the application was to enable current traders to remain at the site with units that were more suited to their business needs rather than to add additional traders.

Councillor Watson had registered to speak as Ward Member for Guildhall Ward in relation to the City Centre issues. He queried page 29 of the agenda which referred to the acceptance that the Castle/Piccadilly site would not be brought forward in the foreseeable future. He queried if such a statement was protecting the interests of the City Centre.

Members questioned if the travel plan for the site would include a car park management plan. The applicant’s agent advised that as the application was not expected to impact on traffic levels the measures detailed on pages 30 to 31 of the agenda were considered sufficient.

Following further discussions it was:

Resolved:           That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the officer’s report and the varied conditions as detailed in the officer update (attached to online agenda).

Reason:              The development proposals for the creation of larger units at Monks Cross would subject to the conditions detailed in the report, amended conditions above and the obligation as described in the report, a have an acceptable level of impact upon the existing planned  and future investment in   the city centre and upon the vitality and viability of the city centre. As such the development which would involve two operators having stores in the city centre as well as at MCSP, would be acceptable.

Erection of 1 three storey and 1 four to seven storey block and the conversion of Wards Warehouse to provide student accommodation (648 student rooms and management facilities); the erection of a 3 storey office (class B1), extension to the Poads Building and the provision of associated cycle and car parking facilities and landscaping works. [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit].

Consideration was given to a major full application for the erection of a 3 storey and a 4 to 7 storey block and the conversion of Wards Warehouse to provide student accommodation (648 student rooms and management facilities); erection of a 3 storey office (class B1), extension to the ‘Poads’ Building and the provision of associated cycle and car parking facilities and landscaping.

Officers circulated an update, full details of which are attached to the online agenda for this meeting. The main points were as follows:

·        Clarification that the overall amount of car parking spaces on site is 19, 10 of which are disabled.

·        Missing text at paragraph 4.41

·        Additional conditions on site drainage and archaeology.

Barry Crux had registered to speak as a resident of Rowntree Wharf. He advised that he was not against the redevelopment of the site but had concerns about this scheme due to the scale and height. He also had concerns about the potential for noise nuisance due to the proposed communal kitchen and living rooms. He urged members to refuse and asked for a better scheme to be brought forward.

Joan Graveson had registered to speak as a resident of John Walker House. She raised 3 concerns; the impact on the easterly aspect of John Walker House; soundproofing of the proposed buildings and management of the site.

Stuart Roberts had registered to speak on behalf of Rowntree Wharf Residents Association. He raised concerns about Rowntree Wharf, which is a grade 2 listed building, being hidden from view. He also raised concerns about the potential for noise nuisance and asked the developer to recognise the concerns.

Mr. Pitchford had registered to speak in order to put forward an alternative suggestion for the site. He suggested that the existing buildings on the site were of interest as examples of late 20^th century industrial buildings and could be incorporated into the scheme instead of being demolished.

Nigel Ingram had registered to speak on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. He advised that the trust supported the scheme in principle but had some concerns about the future tenure of such buildings.

Chris Hale spoke as the applicant’s agent. He advised that technically qualified specialists had been consulted to address concerns such as over shadowing and that local residents had been listened to. The scheme would provide much needed student bedrooms for the city and potentially free up family homes. The buildings would be managed round the clock to minimise noise. In response to comments about the scale, Officers had advised the scheme was considered to be acceptable.

David Coates spoke on behalf of the site owner. He advised that changes in the press industry meant that alternative accommodation was now required. The sale of the site will facilitate a move within York to the Poads Building and there would be no loss of staff.

Councillor Looker spoke as Ward Councillor. She advised that she had concerns about the scheme making Rowntree Wharf invisible. She stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15b