Agenda and draft minutes

The following sites were inspected before the meeting:

At this point Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on this agenda.

Cllr Livesley declared a personal and prejudicial interest in plans item 4b – 32a Copmanthorpe Lane, Bishopthorpe (06/00565/FUL) as he was a personal friend of both objectors.

To approve and sign the minutes of the West & City Centre Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on Thursday 22 June.

That the minutes of the Planning and Transport West and City Centre Sub Committee meeting on 22 June be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record with the following amendments,

That minute 1 – Inspection of Sites be amended as Cllr Horton did not attend site visits at 14-18 Agar Street and Car Park adjacent Woolpack, The Stonebow and that the words, “by virtue of the proposed number of tables and Chairs on New Street” be removed from the first sentence of the reason on Plans Item 5J Café Nero, 16 Davygate (06/01099/FUL).

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered their wish to speak regarding specific planning applications, other agenda items or matters within the remit of the Sub-Committee can do so. Anyone who wishes to register or requires further information is requested to contact the Democracy Officer on the contact details listed at the foot of this agenda. The deadline for registering is Wednesday 19 July at 5.00pm.

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak, under the City of York Council Public Participation Scheme, on general issues within the remit of the Sub-Committee.

Members will consider a schedule of reports of the Assistant Director (Planning and Sustainable Development), relating to planning applications with an outline the proposals and relevant policy considerations and the views and advice of consultees and officers.

Members considered a schedule of reports of the Assistant Director (Planning and Sustainable Development), relating to the following planning applications, outlining the proposals and relevant policy considerations and setting out the views and advice of consultees and officers.

Members considered a full application, submitted by Mr N Travis, for the erection of a detached dwelling.  Officers updated the committee with reference to a tabled document from Cllr Holvey outlining his concerns which included, disruption for residents, creation of a building precedent, access and parking and a negative impact on the character of the area. 

The applicant addressed the committee in support of the item.

RESOLVED:That the application be approved in accordance with the conditions and informatives outlined in the report.

REASON:                 the proposal complies with Policy GP1, GP10, H4A and L1c of the City of York Local Development Control Draft Local Plan.

Members considered a full application, submitted by Mr and Mrs Burlison,  for the erection of a first floor pitched roof extension to create a two story dwelling house, single storey side extension and a front porch.  This application had been deferred from the meeting on 22 June 2006 following the submission of revised plans showing different external materials. 

Officers updated the committee that the neighbours had all now been consulted on the new plans and the revised drawings were tabled.  In addition, photographic images produced by objectors were also tabled for members to consider.  Officers reported that 4 additional letters of objection had been received which raised issues of overlooking and overbearing, loss of privacy and light, gable ends not in keeping, height and scale and the harm caused to the street scene.  Bishopthorpe Parish Council had supplied further comments that the designs had changed little and that overbearing, overlooking, overshadowing and loss of light were still a concern.

The applicant addressed the committee and described her personal connection to the building as it had been designed by her grandfather and the extent to which they had attempted to redesign aspects to take account of objectors concerns.  The applicants agent added that as the original white brick is no longer available a satisfactory compromise was now being suggested and that it was felt that the overall scheme was in keeping with the character of the area.

Mr Mellors, representing objectors and Bishopthorpe Parish Council addressed the committee and expressed concern about the process of the report getting to committee and the tabling revised drawings curtailing the extent to which the Parish Council had chance to comment on them.  In addition, he expressed the view that the that there would be negative impact and overshadowing and over domination of other properties. 

RESOLVED:That the application be approved in line with the conditions and informatives in the report and the additional condition outlined below.

REASON:             The proposal complies with Policies H7 and GP1 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan (2005); national planning guidance contained in Planning Policy Satatement 1 “Delivering Sustainable Development” and supplementary design guidance contained in the City of York’s “A guide to extensions and alterations to provate dwelling houses”.

Members considered a full application, submitted by The Helmsley Group, for the conversion and external alterations of two storey storage building and construction of new third storey to form two dwellings to the rear of 3-5 Blake Street. 

Officers reported that they had been asked to table photographs from the resident at 6 Stonegate Court and those photographs were tabled.  Officers also drew Members attention to a model of the scheme that was presented by the applicant for their information.  Officers updated the committee that objections had included reference to loss of light and reduction in daylight although the analysis had been received which demonstrated that the development would not create significant change to existing light levels.

Ms Venour, the owner of 7 Stonegate Court, addressed the committee (in relation to this application and 05/02271/LBC) on behalf of herself and the owners of 6 Stonegate Court and tabled photographs to demonstrate the intrusion that the development would make and raised concerns about the loss of light, impact on the courtyard and the loss of the sky line.  She also raised concerns that an estate agent was already marketing the development for sale.

Mt Atkinson, the agent for the applicant addressed the committee (in relation to this application and 05/02271/LBC) and described the choice of materials and the sustainable nature of the development in the historic core of the city.  The agent explained that the development would have an impact on existing residents views but would not cause a reduction in light to existing properties.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the conditions and informatives outlined in the report.

REASON:                 As the proposal complies with policies E4 and H9 of the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan (alteration No. 3 Adopted 1995) and policies HE2, H4a, H12, E3b, GP3 and L1c of the City of York Local Plan Deposit Draft, and national policy guidance as contained in Planning Policy Guidance Notes No. 3 “ Housing”, No. 13 “Transport” and No. 15 “Planning and the Historic Environment.”

Members considered an application for a listed building consent, submitted by The Helmsley Group, for the internal and external alterations to demolish existing single storey structures and alteration of existing shopfront at No.5 Blake Street. (05/02271/LBC)

RESOLVED:That the application for Listed Building Consent be approved.

REASON:                 As the planning application 05/02569/FUL complies with planning policy.

Members considered a full application, submitted by Mrs J Sanderson, for the conversion of a barn to a dwelling and the erection of a garage and carport.

The agent for the applicant clarified that a bat survey had been completed at this site which had concluded that although bats are around they are not roosting in this property.

RESOLVED:                        That the application be approved.

REASON:                 As it is considered to conserve and enhance the character and appearance of an agricultural building and meets PPG2 guidance and policies GP1, GB2 and NE7 of the City of York Development Control Draft Local Plan.

Members considered a full application submitted by H Richardson for the erection of 1 detached two storey dwelling to the front of 2-5 Church Street.

Mrs Richardson, the applicant addressed the committee in support of the application and explained some of the historical use and arrangements of the site and her plans for restoration and development of it. 

RESOLVED:                        That the application be refused.

REASON:                 By virtue of the conflict with policies HE2, GP10 and GP1 of the City of York Development Control Draft Local Plan, North Yorkshire County Structure Plan Policy E4 and the Copmanthorpe Village Design Statement.

Members considered an outline application submitted by Mr and Mrs David Smith for a single detached dwelling.

RESOLVED:                        That the application be refused.

REASON:                 As the application is considered to be unacceptable and contrary to GP1, GP!0 and HE2 of the City Of York Development Control Draft Local Plan, Policy E4 of the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan and the Copmanthorpe Village Design Statement.

Members considered a full application, submitted by Mick Callum for a single storey flat-roofed extension to rear.

Officers updated the committee that there had been 6 further objections received which expressed concerns about aggravating existing parking problems, overdevelopment, loss of privacy and amenity and missing drainage details.  In addition, there was a letter received from a previous owner stating that the garage was for the sole use of the house.

Mr Scott, a neighbour addressed the committee in objection to the application and stated that he had spoken to the previous owner of the application site who had confirmed that the permission for the garage had been granted as long as it continued to be a garage.  He raised further concerns about omission on the drawings such as no elevation shown, boundary line is incorrect and the street lighting is not located in the correct place.  He stated that there will be loss of privacy to 144 and a general fear of overlooking and loss of amenity and acerbating parking problems.

RESOLVED:That the application be approved in line with the conditions and recommendations in the report with the addition that the application must provide secure cycle storage.

REASON:                 As the application complies with planning policy and would not cause harm to residential amenity.