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 that they might 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 14 December 2016.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the last meeting held on 14 December 2016 be approved and then 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 18 January 2017. 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 http://www.york.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11406/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_of_council_meetings_20160809.pdf

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 a schedule of reports of the Assistant Director, Planning and Public Protection, relating to the following planning applications outlining the proposals and relevant policy considerations and setting out the views of consultees and officers.

The Council’s Senior Solicitor (Planning) advised Committee Members that the first three items to be considered all concerned proposals for development within the Green Belt. She read out a briefing note which reminded Members of the relevant legal and policy tests which applied to these applications.

Formation of car parking area. [Strensall Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr Terence Warom for the formation of an additional car parking area for 20 vehicles behind an area of woodland adjacent to the existing parking area.

Officers  drew Members’ attention to paragraph 4.15 of the report which referred to the impact of the proposal on trees. She advised Members that the landscape officer had asked for a revised plan moving development out of the root protection zone and that that plan had been received. In view of this, she proposed that the new plan SK01/16/C revision 4 replaced the proposed car park extension  revision C which was listed in condition 2 (Plans).

Members noted Officers recommendation for approval and agreed that the applicant had demonstrated very special circumstances relating to the need for additional car parking on site and that these clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt.

Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and the amendment to condition 2.

Amended Condition 2

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:-

Boundary and car park plan

Proposed car parking SK01/16/C Rev 4 Received 19/01/17

Grassguard installation details

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:     The minimal and certainly less than substantial harm to the conservation area and setting of the listed  building  must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal which in this case would be the creation of additional off-street parking which would encourage parking within the site rather than on the public highway. In this instance it is considered that the public benefits of providing additional off-street parking in a secluded area away from the listed building while relieving current parking pressures clearly outweigh the harm (even when considerable importance and weight is attached to the preservation of the significance of these heritage assets).

In the circumstances of this case the need for the parking area is considered to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and any other harm, such that they amount to very special circumstances  There are also no other material planning considerations that would warrant refusal of the application.

Single storey extension to showroom and antiques restoration building to form furniture storage area.

[Huntington/New Earswick Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application for a single storey extension to the showroom and antiques restoration building to form a furniture storage area.

Mr Stephen Hazell, the owner of French House (Antiques) Ltd, addressed the committee in support of the application. He informed Members that the business had grown year on year and was now the leading supplier of French antiques in the country. He explained that he wanted to continue operating the business from York but needed additional space in order to expand the business and be able to employ more people.  He advised the committee that the building would be screened on all sides with existing and proposed new trees. He explained that they had looked to moving to another site but that as a small family business they couldn’t afford the logistics of moving to a completely new site in a more expensive location. He advised the Committee that their only option, if the application was refused, would be to transfer the business to Easingwold.

Members noted the reasons for the proposals put forward by the applicant but acknowledged officers views that the reasons put forward as very special circumstances were not special enough to outweigh the harm to the green belt from inappropriateness and harm to openness. Councillor Galvin moved, and Councillor Boyce seconded, a motion to defer the application to give the applicant the opportunity to work with officers to strengthen the reasons which were being put forward as special circumstances.

Some Members were of the view that a local business should be allowed to expand, that this was a relatively modest extension of buildings which didn’t look too different to agricultural storage units which could be found on a farm. They stated that they did not feel that this would cause  harm to the greenbelt and acknowledged that that alternate premises of this nature were hard and expensive to come by with additional moving costs.  They noted that the expansion would lead to employment of four additional staff.

Some Members, however, felt that the applicant had not put forward special circumstances and that he could relocate his business elsewhere as it did not need to be in a rural location. They  noted that the landscaping at the front of the site screened the site from the highway but that the site was visible from the A64 which ran to the East of the site and new development would be visible from there.

After further debate, some Members agreed that the reasons the applicant had put forward constituted very special circumstances but accepted that they could have been articulated more clearly and strongly by the applicant in the planning application. Councillor  Galvin withdrew his motion to defer the application (supported by Cllr Boyce who had seconded the original motion to defer).

Councillor Warters then moved, and Councillor Galvin seconded, a motion to approve the application with appropriate conditions on the grounds that the applicant had demonstrated very special circumstances which outweighed the harm  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68a

Siting of 3 no. grain silos to be converted for use as holiday accommodation. [Wheldrake Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr Raley for the siting of three grain silos to be converted for use as holiday accommodation.

Officers provided a detailed updated on the proposals. They advised that, since the report had been prepared, a detailed consultation response had been received from the Authority’s ecologist expressing serious concern in respect of the lack of information with the application in relation to impacts upon local ecology and biodiversity arising from the proposal. It was indicated that the surrounding area comprised suitable habitat for both the Great Crested Newt and species of bat whose habitats were protected by law.  Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework indicated that very substantial weight should be afforded to any potential harm to such habitat in these circumstances and that permission should be refused if it could not be demonstrated that the harm could be effectively mitigated. Officers confirmed their recommendation that planning permission should be refused for the additional reason that “Insufficient information had been submitted with the application to enable a substantive assessment of the impact of the proposal upon the habitat of protected species and any necessary mitigation to be undertaken contrary to paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Officers also advised that a detailed letter had been circulated on behalf of the applicant but felt that this did not address the requirements of paragraph 87 and 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework, in terms of demonstrating a case for “very special circumstances” that would outweigh any harm arising from the development by reason of inappropriateness or any other harm. At the same time the requirements of paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of safeguarding the habitat of protected species had also not been addressed.

Lastly, officers advised that they had just received comments from the council’s highways officers who had indicated that the access, which was quite substantial, did not connect directly to the public highway but instead to a public bridleway. There were implications with regard to the maintenance and usage of the bridleway and how that access would operate which could not be assessed on the basis of the information submitted. They therefore proposed that another reason for refusal would be that there was insufficient information to be able to assess the impact of the proposal on the public highway.

Mr Raley of H Raley and Son, the applicants, addressed the committee in support of the application. He acknowledged the council’s position with regard to Green Belt policy but expressed dismay at how this prevented their attempt to diversify. He informed Members that in the last six months, two family friends has been forced to cease trading and that there had been no objections to the proposals from members of the public who were supportive of them. He stated that he was unaware of the points raised by the planning officer but advised that he had been maintaining the bridleway in question.

Officers advised Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

Alterations and refurbishment of Guildhall complex to create conference rooms, meeting rooms and offices, refurbishment and part rebuild of existing south range to provide cafe and ancillary accommodation, and erection of extension on north side of complex to form restaurant and office accommodation. [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application by City of York Council for alterations to and refurbishment of the Guildhall complex to create conference rooms, meeting rooms and offices, refurbishment and part rebuild of the existing south range to provide a cafe and ancillary accommodation, and the erection of an extension on the north side of the complex to form a restaurant and office accommodation.

Officers advised that the applicant had requested that the application be deferred to enable the outstanding concerns in respect of the design of the feature window to  the north extension and the alterations to the Grade I Listed Guildhall and the appropriate treatment of its on-going civic use and its substantial contribution to the significance of the building, to be satisfactorily resolved. Officers confirmed they were supportive of deferral for those reasons and therefore recommend that the proposal be deferred for consideration at a future meeting.

Resolved:  That the application be deferred for consideration at a future meeting.

Reason:     To enable the outstanding concerns described above to be satisfactorily resolved before consideration of the application.

Alterations and refurbishment of Guildhall complex to create conference rooms, meeting rooms and offices, refurbishment and part rebuild of existing south range to provide cafe and ancillary accommodation, and erection of extension on north side of complex to form restaurant and office accommodation. [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application for listed building consent by City of York Council for alterations to and refurbishment of the Guildhall complex to create conference rooms, meeting rooms and offices, refurbishment and part rebuild of the existing south range to provide a cafe and ancillary accommodation, and the erection of an extension on the north side of the complex to form a restaurant and office accommodation.

Officers advised that the applicant had requested that the application be deferred to enable the outstanding concerns in respect of the design of the feature window to  the north extension and the alterations to the Grade I Listed Guildhall and the appropriate treatment of its on-going civic use and its substantial contribution to the significance of the building, to be satisfactorily resolved. Officers confirmed they were supportive of deferral for those reasons and therefore recommend that the proposal be deferred for consideration at a future meeting.

Resolved:  That the application be deferred for consideration at a future meeting.

Reason:     To enable the outstanding concerns described above to be satisfactorily resolved before consideration of the application.

Erection of 3-storey accommodation block (resubmission). [Fishergate Ward]

Members considered a major full application by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation for the erection of a 3 storey accommodation block.

Members noted that an application for a 3 storey building comprising 126 units of living accommodation for the military had been approved by Planning Committee on 20 August 2015 and were advised that this scheme was for a reduction in the number of living units to 60 in an L shaped building.

Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report.

Reason:     The development is required to accommodate military personnel living on site.  The development accords with national planning policy set out in the NPPF and relevant policies of the 2005 City of York Draft Local Plan.  The Planning circumstances have not changed materially since approval of the larger development.

Change of use from offices (use class B1) to 124no. bed hotel and 33no. serviced suites/apartments (use class C1) and six storey extension to rear/southwest. [Micklegate Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application by Yorkshire House Development One Ltd for the change of use from offices (use class B1) to a 124 bed hotel and 33 serviced suites/apartments (use  class C1) and a six storey extension to the rear/southwest.

Officers advised that, since the report had been written, revised plans had been received illustrating  the elevational treatment of the proposed extension and the proposed highway works to the vehicular access from Rougier Street. The Conservation Architect was satisfied with the revised elevation details. Highway Network Management raised no objections to the application but made the following points:

·          The proposed hotel was ideally situated for guests and staff in terms of sustainable travel (close to the two centrally located bus interchanges and York railway station). Access was to be taken from existing access points; one on Station Road and one on Rougier Street.

·          The Rougier Street access was currently subjected to deliveries to The Grand Hotel which had turning space for modest delivery vehicles. Deliveries to Yorkshire House were currently taken by vehicles reversing into the access. Envisaged a notable increase in deliveries to that which could be experienced by the current lawful usage of the site. The application did not offer any proposed turning for delivery wagons within the proposed site. This access would also serve the lower ground floor car parking area. This was an existing situation. Cars had the required turning within the car park to enter and exit the highway in forward gear. To mitigate the effects on pedestrians/ reversing vehicle conflicts, the applicant had agreed to improvements to this access which may be conditioned.

·          The Station Rise vehicular access would lead to car parking and turning for smaller delivery vehicles and cars. The size of vehicles accessing this facility would be restricted to that of the opening allowed above the entrance created by additional floors. This should ensure that vehicles accessing the site would be able to manoeuvre in and out of the site in forward gear into the one way traffic system.

·          The car parking accorded with CYC Appendix E parking standards.

·          Cycle parking was provided. Sought condition to ensure the cycle stands and enclosure were acceptable and the number of spaces accorded Appendix E minimum number of cycles. Sought following conditions HWAY18 (Cycle parking details to be agreed), HWAY 19 (Car and cycle parking laid out) , HWAY39 (Off site highway works, details required), and Method of Works Statement, and INF1

Officers advised that a further objection had been received which raised the following concerns:

·        Objector refers to the book ‘The North Eastern Railways Two Palaces of Business’ the former NE Railway HQ building (The Grand) is described as a “Palace of Business”. The former NER building was located on raised ground so that its height and presence boasted the status of the Railway Company.  The objector states that the space to the north of the NE Railway HQ was intended to expose the northern elevation of the building.  To fill  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

The Chair updated Members on the outcome of the judicial review relating to the Community Stadium and thanked officers for their support during the process.