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.

Councillor Dew declared a personal interest in relation to agenda item 4c – Land Lying to the West of Knapton Lane as his son lives in Knapton.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 19^th November 2015.

Resolved:           That the minutes of the last meeting held on 19^th November 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 9^th December 2015. 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.

Filming or Recording Meetings

“Please note this meeting will be filmed and webcast and that includes any registered public speakers, who have given their permission.  This broadcast can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/webcasts.

Residents are welcome to photograph, film or record Councillors and Officers at all meetings open to the press and public. This includes the use of social media reporting, i.e. tweeting.  Anyone wishing to film, record or take photos at any public meeting should contact the Democracy Officer (whose contact details are at the foot of this agenda) in advance of the meeting.

The Council’s protocol on Webcasting, Filming & Recording of Meetings ensures that these practices are carried out in a manner both respectful to the conduct of the meeting and all those present.  It can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/download/3130/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_of_council_meetings

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Members then considered the following reports of the Assistant Director (Development Services, Planning and Regeneration) 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 outline application for the erection of two buildings (Block G and Block H) to comprise either residential units (use class C3), residential institution/elderly accommodation (use class C2), or a mixture of the two and flexible commercial uses (within use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1 or D2) and associated infrastructure works. A full application for erection of part 5/part 6/part 7 storey building (Block D) comprising 186 residential units; erection of part 5/part 6/part 7 storey building (Block F) comprising 101 residential units, community centre (use class D1) and multi-storey car park; development of new public spaces (St John's Square and Friar's Quay) and riverside walk and associated infrastructure works. [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit].

Consideration was given to a major outline application by Hungate (York) Regeneration Limited for erection of two buildings (Block G and Block H) to comprise either residential units (use class C3), residential institution/elderly accommodation (use class C2), or a mixture of the two and flexible commercial uses (within use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1 or D2) and associated infrastructure works. Full application for erection of part 5/part 6/part 7 storey building (Block D) comprising 186 residential units; erection of part 5/part 6/part 7 storey building (Block F) comprising 101 residential units, community centre (use class D1) and multi-storey car park; development of new public spaces (St John's Square and Friar's Quay) and riverside walk and associated infrastructure works.

Officers circulated a lengthy 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 policy update provided by City Development  to confirm that the Council’s calculations accord with the applicant’s statement that up to 10,400 sqm of B1a office space could be provided in this part of the city.

·        Safer York Partnership – the applicant confirmed a meeting had taken place with the police Architectural Liaison Officer and the only remaining issue was the open spaces of St Johns Square and Friars Quay within the development.

·        Bus stop improvements -  Paragraph 4.95 of the Officers report should refer to improvements to the bus stops at Peasholme Green rather than Jewbury.

·        Community facilities (revisions to text) - £100k commuted payment towards the development of integrated and jointly managed community facilities at Central Methodist Chapel on St. Saviourgate and the on-site community space and the transfer of completed on site community space to an appropriate management organisation as agreed by City of York Council in consultation with the Hungate Development Community Trust and the Central Methodist Chapel.

·        Public Art  - arts projects, works deriving from archaeology on the site and use of local artists to design elements of the scheme should be considered by the applicant.

·        Additional conditions - Officers requested that if Members were minded to approve the application that delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director for minor amendments to the wording of conditions to take account of potential phasing issues.

Officers then advised of a number of other issues that had arisen since the committee report and update had been issued to Members as follows:

·        Factual errors in the committee report - in reference to page 47 of the agenda, the text “Stonebow / Hungate Highways Street Improvement works £307,000” should be deleted.  These works were not being secured by the Section 106 agreement but would be secured through Condition 27 and would be delivered at the developers expense through a S278 Highways agreement.

·        An amendment to the text of Condition 27 to include reference to the provision of public art.

·        On page 47 of the agenda, under the heading of Highways, it should state “bus pass to be provided  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

A major full application for the installation of solar photovoltaic array with associated infrastructure including solar panels and frames, inverter kiosk, security fencing, cameras and poles, new internal access track and temporary construction compound. [Wheldrake Ward] [Site Visit].

Consideration was given to a major full application by Kelda Energy Services Limited for the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) array with associated infrastructure including solar panels and frames, new internal access track and temporary construction compound.

Paul Kelly spoke on behalf of the applicant. He advised that the scheme had been applied for in order to assist with the £50m per year energy bills the company incurs and it was hoped that the solar panels would help deliver savings for the company and reduce carbon emissions. He felt that the development would have a limited impact on the Green Belt and that the benefits the scheme would deliver would outweigh any impact.

Members queried a number of points, in particular whether the scheme would benefit the local community in any way and the impact of the proposals upon the Green Belt. It was confirmed that the energy generated  would only be for use by the Sewage Treatment Works and that Officers considered that the development would cause significant harm due to the impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the views from the nearby cycle route.

Following further discussion, some Members felt that the development was inappropriate in the location, whereas other Members felt that they could support the application due to the proposed sustainable energy use. When put to the vote it was:

Resolved:           That the application be refused.

Reason:              Policies YH9 and Y1 of the Yorkshire and Humber Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026 defines the general extent of the Green Belt around York with an outer boundary about 6 miles from the city centre. The application site, south of the sewage treatment works in Naburn is located within the general extent of the York Green Belt. The site is also within the Green Belt as identified in the City of York Draft Development Control Local Plan (April 2005). It is considered that the proposed development consisting of a solar photovoltaic (PV) array with associated infrastructure constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt as set out in Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework and particularly paragraph 91. As such, the proposal results in harm to the Green Belt, by definition, and by reason of any other harm, including the impact on the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Whilst ‘very special circumstances' have been put forward by the applicant being the generation of renewable energy, this does not clearly outweigh this harm. The proposal is, therefore, considered contrary to advice within the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular section 9 'Protecting Green Belt land' and City of York Draft Development Control Local Plan polices SP2 and GB1.

A major outline application for the erection of 14 dwellings. [Acomb Ward] [Site Visit].

Consideration was given to a major outline application by Novus Investments Ltd for the erection of 14 dwellings.

Officers provided a brief update to the committee report, full details of which are attached to the online agenda for information, the main points were as follows:

·        The Council’s Highway Network Management no longer raised objections following the receipt of an amended plan which introduced a footpath to the site frontage. They also sought sustainable transport measures through the Section 106 agreement.

·        The Council’s housing department objected to the lack of affordable housing being proposed.

Marcus Offer had registered to speak on behalf of The Friends of Knapton Lane Woodlands. He advised that he represented over 50 households and while many of the households enjoyed views of the woodlands, the main concern was regarding the removal of the site from the draft Green Belt, should the application be approved. He referred to the North Yorkshire Green Belt Local Plan Inquiry in 1994 in which the Inspector considered the site should be included in the Green Belt and reminded Members that the latest available draft of the Local Plan still shows the site as Green Belt.

Tony Chalcroft had registered to speak also on behalf of The Friends of Knapton Lane Woodlands. He referred to the applicant’s assertion that the area to be cleared had low ecological significance and the fact that the Council’s Ecology officer had refuted this. He advised that the woodland is valued locally and that a number of species including hedgehogs, amphibians and bats have been noted at the site.

Robert Dick had registered to speak on behalf York Natural Environment Trust (YNET). He advised that YNET concur with the comments made by the Officers in the committee report in relation to Ecology. He referred to the Ash trees which had withstood many years on the site and considered that they should be protected. He also raised concerns about the displacement of water should the site be built on and the impact this could have on nearby wetlands.

Simon Grundy spoke as the agent in support of the application. He advised that in his opinion, cities require room to grow and that greenfield land is required for development. In relation to the site he advised that as there was development on 3 sides already; this application would round it off the site. He felt that the site did serve  a green belt  function and was of little ecological  importance. The development would be a small scale housing development in keeping with the area and in his opinion, would have minimum impact.

Members queried a number of points with the applicant’s agent, in particular why the applicant did not accept that the site was considered to be green belt and why he felt it had no relevance. The applicant advised that in relation to green belt he felt the site did not serve any of the purposes of the green belt. In terms of the site having no relevance he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.