Agenda and 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.

Members were invited to declare at this point in the meeting any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider excluding the public and press from the meeting during consideration of agenda item 5 (Enforcement Cases Update) on the grounds that they contain information classed as exempt under Paragraph 6 of Schedule 12A to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to information) (Variation) Order 2006. This information, if disclosed to the public would reveal that the authority proposes to give, under any enactment, a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person or that the Authority proposes to make an order or directive under any enactment

RESOLVED:             That the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the annexes to agenda item 5 (Enforcement Cases Update) on the grounds that they contain information classed as exempt under paragraph 6 of Schedule 12A to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006. This information, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the authority proposes to give, under any enactment, a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person or that the Authority proposes to make an order or directive under any enactment.

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 the working day before the meeting. 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 Council’s 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.

Change of use of Engine House to form restaurant (Class A3), 1 apartment and leisure suite; erection of extension to form dining room; new outdoor terrace; new railings, gates and steps (resubmission) [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered a full application submitted by Mr Ian McAndrew for the change of use of the Engine House to form a restaurant (Class A3), a two bed apartment with associated leisure suite, the erection of an extension to form a restaurant dining room, a new outdoor terrace new railings, gates and steps.

The case officer updated that an additional condition had been added  regarding the approval of the design and type of outside furniture to be used around the terrace.

Members requested that additional conditions be added in relation to limiting the access through the bar walls to trading hours and limiting the use of the leisure suite to the occupants of the apartment only.

Representations were received in support of the application from a representative of the Inland Waterways Association but raising concerns about the provision of adequate facilities for boaters and the distance of the facilities from some moorings. He stressed the need for good signage and lighting and a commitment to maintain the facilities provided.

Further representations in support of the application were received from  the Architect highlighting the positive relationship that the new building would have within the Museum Gardens and the sustainable features which it would incorporate.

Members discussed issues relating to the glazing of the restaurant, boating  facilities, riverside railings and deliveries.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and the additional conditions listed below:¹

(1)Prior to the development hereby permitted commencing, dimensions and materials of the proposed external tables, chairs, barriers and any other associated furniture shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority. Furniture shall be stored inside the premises outside hours of operation.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the area.

(2) The proposed access through the city walls shall only be open during hours of the restaurant being in operation.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the area and security.

(3)The leisure suite shall only be used by residents of the flat hereby approved and occupants of Lendal Hill House.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and security.

REASON:                  That the proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the report and additional conditions listed above, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to the character and appearance of the conservation area, the setting of the Museum Gardens and nearby listed buildings, the provision of facilities for boaters and flood risk. As such the proposal complies with Policies GP1, HE2, HE3, HE4, HE9, HE12 and C3 of the City of York Local Plan Deposit Draft.

Internal and external alterations and new extension in connection with proposed use as a restaurant, apartment and leisure suite, new outdoor terrace, gates and railings (resubmission) [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered an application for Listed Building Consent submitted by Mr Ian McAndrew for internal and external alterations and a new extension in connections with the proposed use as a restaurant, apartment and leisure suite, new outdoor terrace, gates and railings (resubmission).

Representations were received in objection to the application for Listed Building Consent. The objector raised concerns that the raised level of the restaurant and steps leading to it would have a fundamental impact on the Museum Gardens and that the dining terrace, which has been extended to wrap around three sides of the building, would signal food and retail too strongly. He suggested that the glass used in the construction should be tinted to soften the appearance of the building. He also felt that the existing railings should be retained.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.¹

REASON:                  That the proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the report, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to the impact on the special architectural and historic character of the listed building. As such the proposal complies with Policy E4 of the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan (Alteration No.3 Adopted 1995) and Policy HE4 of the City of York Local Plan Deposit Draft.

Erection of 12 two storey semi-detached and terraced houses and 4 garages [Acomb Ward]

Members considered a full application submitted by Hogg Builders (York) Ltd for the proposed erection of 12 two-storey semi-detached and terraced houses and 4 garages.

The case officer updated that:

• drainage details had now been received and the Council’s Drainage Engineer had withdrawn his objections. It was therefore suggested that the reason for refusal in relation to drainage be removed. Should Members be minded to approve the application, then a condition regarding the provision of final drainage calculations should be added.

• the applicants had confirmed that, should the application be approved, they are prepared to provide funding for Kassel kerbing on the outbound bus stop opposite 9 Beckfield Lane and a BLISS (bus real time display) on the inbound bus stop opposite 19 Beckfield Lane.

• the applicants had confirmed that they would be prepared to pay a commuted sum to the Council. It was therefore suggested that the reason for refusal in relation to open spaces be removed. Should Members be minded to approve the application, then a condition regarding the provision for public open space facilities or alternative arrangements should be added.

• additional correspondence had been received from a local resident refuting claims that there were newts, baths and sparrow hawks on the site and expressing the problems that he and his neighbours have in maintaining their gardens due to size and soil conditions.

• that comments had been received from Councillor Horton who fully supported the officer recommendation of refusal.

Representations, in objection, to the proposed development were received from:

• a local resident who raised concerns over the proximity of the proposed development to existing properties, the possible effect on elderly residents, the siting of the proposed access road, the impact of the hard landscaping, the detrimental effect on the existing character of the area including loss of open space and mature trees.

• Another local resident who raised issues of overshadowing due to the height of the proposed buildings and existing land levels. He also raised concerns about the proposed boundary fence and drainage.

• the Acomb Planning Panel whose view was that the proposed two storey development was not compatible with and would overlook the current bungalows and that the traffic flow did not take account of the existing congestion near local retail premises.

• Councillor Simpson-Laing as Ward Councillor on behalf of some local residents. She stated that the drawings submitted were incorrect in places as they did not show extensions to properties, the effect of this being that the development was closer to existing properties than shown, exaggerating the issue of overshadowing/overmassing. She also raised concerns regarding traffic flows in the vicinity of the retail premises, loss of the open space as an amenity, loss of trees and the effect on wildlife and the potential increased risk of flooding due to replacement of gardens with tarmac.

A written representation, in support of the application, was received from a local resident  and circulated at the meeting which raised the following points:

• Gardens are private gardens and not a communal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101c

Single storey pitched roof rear extension [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered a full application submitted by Mr N Cooper for a single storey pitched roof rear extension.

Written representations had been received from a neighbour in objection to the application. He wrote that the proposed extension would result in a loss of light to his property due to the proposed party wall being higher than the existing boundary wall, which in an area already surrounded by tall buildings would be overbearing and increase the sense of enclosure. He also stated that the proposed extension would be out of keeping with the historic character of the early 19^th Century terrace of housing and raised concerns over the future use of the property which has been put back on the market by the new owner and is currently used for short term lets for business and weekend holiday accommodation.

Members discussed the fact that the proposed extension would be overbearing and would alter the character of the buildings.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused ¹

REASON:                  (1)       Because of its height, projection and proximity to the common boundary, the proposed extension would dominate and be overbearing on the outlook from the rear ground floor rooms and rear yard of no.1 Friars Terrace and also result in overshadowing thereby harming existing living conditions.  This is contrary to policies GP1 and H7 of the Development Control Local Plan.

                                    (2)       The proposed rear extension would infill the gap between the original offshoot and the boundary wall which would be uncharacteristic of the terrace and the listed building.  Furthermore the height, ridged roof and detailed design of the doors of the extension would be out of character with the simple and unaltered detailing of the rear elevation.  This would harm the special interest of the building and the character and appearance of the conservation area contrary to policy HE2 and HE4 of the Development Control Local Plan and the guidance contained in PPG15 "Planning and the Historic Environment".

Single storey pitched roof rear extension [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered an application for Listed Building Consent submitted by Mr N Cooper for a single storey pitched roof rear extension.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused. ¹

REASON:                  The proposed rear extension would infill the gap between the original offshoot and the boundary wall which would be uncharacteristic of the listed building.  Furthermore the height and ridged roof of the extension and detailed design of its doors would be out of character with the simple and unaltered detailing of the rear elevation.  This would harm the character and appearance of the listed building contrary to policy HE4 of the Development Control Local Plan and the guidance contained in PPG15 "Planning and the Historic Environment".

Erection of detached dwelling with side dormer window (resubmission) [Holgate Ward]

Members considered a full application submitted by Mr Nick Squire for the erection of a detached dwelling with a side dormer window (resubmission).

The case officer reported that the survey drawings were inaccurate and recommended that the item be deferred until accurate replacement drawings had been obtained from the applicant.

Representations were received in objection to the application from a local resident who raised concerns about the recommendation to defer the application.

Members raised concerns over timescales and suggested that a time limit be imposed for the receipt of accurate survey drawings to enable the application to be considered.

RESOLVED              (1)       That consideration of the application be deferred to the next full meeting of the Sub-Committee on Thursday 15 May 2008.

                                    (2)       That, if accurate survey drawings have not been received by the next full meeting of the Sub-Committee, a legal officer be present at the meeting to provide advice to Members.¹

REASON:                  To allow time for accurate survey drawings to be submitted and considered.

Members will consider a report which provides a continuing quarterly update on the number of enforcement cases currently outstanding for the area covered by the Sub-Committee.

Members considered a report, which provided them with a continuing quarterly update on the number of enforcement cases currently outstanding for the area covered by this Sub-Committee.

RESOLVED:             That the reports be noted.

REASON:                  To update Members on the number of outstanding enforcement cases within the Sub-Committee area.