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 might have in the business on the agenda.

Councillor Reid declared a personal and prejudicial interest in plans list item 4a (Coal Yard, Mansfield Street) as she had a business connection with the applicant’s family. Councillor Reid left the room for consideration of this item and took no part in the debate or vote on this application.

Councillor Reid also declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in plans list item 4c (Herbert Todd and Son, Percy’s Lane) as her son lived in an adjacent council flat.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 14 July 2016.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the chair.

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 17 August 2016. 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 Officers 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 Officers (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 https://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/file/6453/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_council_meetingspdf

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 Planning Committee.

Members 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.

Erection of four storey block for student accommodation (84 units) following demolition of existing building.[Site Visit]  [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered a full application by Horwell Bros Ltd for the erection of a four storey block to provide student accommodation (84 units) following demolition of the existing building.

Officers advised that they had received a flood evacuation plan as set out in paragraph 4.44 of the report but as yet they were not fully satisfied with the details of the plan. They advised that they would like to seek a deferral in order that they could review the evacuation plan more clearly and then come back to Members at the next meeting.

Resolved:

That the application be deferred to a future meeting. 

Reason:    

To enable further liaison to take place between the applicant and officers in order to seek satisfactory  details of a  flood evacuation plan.

Formation of additional car parking spaces with associated lighting and security fence to north boundary.[Site Visit] 

[Rawcliffe and Clifton Without Ward]

Members considered a full application by Mr Mark Hanson for the formation of additional car parking spaces with associated lighting and security fence to the north boundary.

Officers advised that they had received two further consultation responses. Public Protection had advised that insufficient information had been submitted regarding the lighting. They stated that information should include a site plan showing the lux levels from the lighting on different planes, ground level and 1.5 metres in height, which also included the location of properties within 100m of site, and that the lighting complied with the Institute of Lighting Professionals guidance on obtrusive lighting.

The Environment Agency noted that a Flood Risk Assessment had not been submitted but advised that they would have no objection to the proposed development  provided there was no raising of ground levels and excess spoil was removed from the site. They also felt that the developer should produce/update a flood evacuation plan and that surface water run-off from the proposed development site should be managed using sustainable drainage techniques to ensure that flood risk was not increased either on-site or elsewhere.

Officers asked Members to note the following corrections to the report:

·        In paragraph 4.9 reference is made to paragraphs 4.17 and 4.18 this should read 4.14 to 4.15.

·        In paragraph 4.16 reference is made to paragraphs 4.33 and 4.37 this should read 4.30 to 4.34.

·        Para 1.1 and 4.13: the number of trees to be removed for the southern most car park would be 5 (Horse Chestnut, Robina, Plane, Sycamore, and Beech) rather than 3.

Officers informed Members of the Court of Appeal’s advice on the approach to be taken in determining applications for development which involved elements which were inappropriate development and elements which were appropriate in the Green Belt and the advice was that the correct approach was to consider and assess the whole of the development as inappropriate development.

It was noted that cars currently parked on the main access road and some members felt that expanding the car park by a small amount would help alleviate this problem and would not cause any harm to the greenbelt.

Councillor Galvin moved and Councillor Richardson seconded a motion to approve the application with the increased need for car parking being considered as very special circumstances, and a condition to protect trees and for the parking surface to be permeable. On being put to the vote this motion fell.

Members noted that the site already met the required standard for the number of parking spaces and that no increase in employment had been shown. They considered that the applicant had only offered very weak reasons for the need for more parking and suggested that a travel plan and analysis of travel to work should be carried out. Members felt that the proposals constituted inappropriate development in the greenbelt and that very special circumstances had not been demonstrated to justify the proposals.

Resolved:

That the application be refused.

Reason:   

 The considerations put forward by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Erection of 2no. student accommodation blocks, part 3-storey, part 4 storey, comprising of 106no. units following demolition of existing buildings. [Site Visit]  [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered a full application by S Harrison Developments for the erection of two student accommodation blocks, part 3-storey, part 4 storey, comprising 106 units following demolition of existing buildings at Percy’s Lane, York.

Officers provided an update on consultation responses which had been received from:

Public Protection:  With regard to site remediation, officers had assessed the site investigation report which sufficiently  informed the mitigation necessary to make the site fit for the proposed use. Therefore the requirement for a site investigation may now be omitted from proposed condition 4.

Highway Network Management: requested deferral based on reduction of cycle provision from 50% and the need for a plan showing the extent of adopted highway to be stopped up. 

Officers drew members attention to  paragraphs 4.45 and 4.46 of report which provided actual evidence of usage at adjacent similar developments which was shown to be much lower than 50%. They also advised that the applicant has confirmed pre-application approach to and agreement from Highways regarding the stopping-up of the segment of land on the corner of Percy’s lane and Navigation Road.

Conservation Areas Advisory Panel: objected to this proposal on the grounds that it was not only over-development of the site but also that the building would dwarf and detract from the adjacent Grade I church.

A note on behalf of the Civic Trust was referred to and passed to officers by a representative of the Early Music Centre. The comments stated the Trust supported the student redevelopment but was opposed to the height of the development that would impact on the setting of St Margaret’s Church and the conservation area. Design modification to reduce the height was suggested.

Officers advised that the following information should be added to Paragraph 4.10 after 2^nd sentence “There were 20,005 students in FTE in 2013/14 and the figure is projected to grow in future.  The universities provide accommodation for approx 6,000 students, the private sector will provide a further 2,447 spaces in purpose built accommodation when current schemes under construction are complete at Hull Road/Lawrence Street and George Hudson Street.”

Officers advised of the following amendments to conditions and the requirement for a further condition as follows:

·        Condition 2: PLY 3055 P13-04d to PLY 3055 P13-04c (cycle store roof to fall into the site so that the rainwater can be more easily managed).

·        Condition 4: Amended to omit the site investigation requirement.

·        Additional condition: Requirement for occupational management plan

Officers advised that at the site visit concerns had been raised aboutinadequate street lighting on Percy’s Lane. Officers informed Members that there were 3 street lights already on Percy’s Lane, with one removed when the Hotel Indigo had been developed. The development would increase activity and amenity lighting, with bulk head lights under the projecting bays. They advised that CCTV and lighting were proposed at the entrance to the amenity area, rear cycle storage area and refused storage area and it was noted that the Police Designing Out Crime Officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

This report (presented to both Planning Committee and the Area Planning Sub Committee) informs Members of the Council’s performance in relation to appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate between 1 April and 30 June 2016, and provides a summary of the salient points from appeals determined in that period. A list of outstanding appeals to date of writing is also included. 

Members considered a report which informed them of the Council’s performance in relation to appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate between 1 April and 30 June 2016and provided them with a summary of the salient points from appeals determined in that period.

Officers advised that the first sentence of paragraph 4 of the report should refer to 1 April to 30^th June 2016 and that the last sentence should state “dismissed” application and not “major” application.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.

Reason:    

To inform Members of the current position in relation to planning appeals against the Council’s decisions as determined by the Planning Inspectorate.