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 any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda. None were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the West & City Centre Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 29 April 2008.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the meeting held on 29^th April 2008 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 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 nobody had registered to speak at the meeting 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.

First floor extension, alterations to elevations and change of use of from electrical store/office to two dwellings [Holgate Ward]

Members considered a full application, submitted by Mr Shaun Batchelor, for a first floor extension, alterations to elevations and change of use from electrical store/office to two dwellings.

The case officer updated that the following comments had been received from City Development:

1.      Existing and Proposed Employment Site

In regards to policy E3b (Existing and Proposed Employment Sites), the policy requires that evidence is provided to show that the site is not required as part of the employment land supply. In order to determine if there is a sufficient supply of employment land to meet immediate and longer term requirements over the plan period in quantitative and qualitative terms, the site should be marketed for a minimum of six months, or the applicant is able to prove that the loss of this employment site is not detrimental to York’s employment land supply. A letter was submitted from Elmer Estates stating that the unit was advertised on the internet, within the estate agent’s shop window and locally on Minster FM between March 2004 and April 2007 for sale as a commercial unit. No information was submitted regarding rates/prices or the number of enquiries.

Housing Windfalls

If evidence shows that the site is not required as part of the employment land supply then the proposed development is in compliance with part (a) and (b) of Policy H4a(Housing Windfalls).

Density

The density of the proposed development is approximately 153 dwellings per hectare. The density recommended in Policy H5a is 40 dwellings per hectare.

Mix of Dwellings

The greatest demand across York is for 2 and 3 bed room homes.

The following comments had been received from Lifelong, Learning and Leisure:

2.      As there is no on site open space commuted sums should be paid to the Council for (a) amenity open space – which would be used to improve a local site within the Leeman Road area (b) play space – which would be used to improve a local site within the Leeman Road area (c) sports pitches. The commuted sum would be £720.

Councillor Sue Galloway moved and Councillor Crisp seconded a motion to refuse the application. When put to the vote the motion was lost.

Some Members thought that the buildings were no longer sustainable as an employment premises. They said that the only reason for refusing the application would be due to loss of an employment site but did not think that this could be justified.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the following conditions and Informatives:¹

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

619.003 Revision C received 12 March 2008

or any plans or details subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority as amendment to the approved plans.

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

2.      No development shall commence unless and until details of provision for public open  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5a

Erection of 7 units for business, light industrial and storage distribution (B1, B2, and B8) uses with associated parking, service yard and landscaping (1190SQM) (Resubmission) [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered a major full application, submitted by Yorvale Properties Ltd, for the erection of 7 units for business, light industrial and storage distribution (B1, B2 and B8) uses with associated parking, service yard and landscaping (1190SQM) (Resubmission).

The case officer updated the sub-committee with the following information:

·        The applicants have stated that they do not intend to contribute towards the traffic order requested by Highway Network Management. Highways Network Management have accepted this and Property Services have offered to contribute towards the traffic order.

Members asked for a condition in relation to height to be added.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report and the following additional condition.¹

·                    Notwithstanding the information contained on the

approved plans, the height of the approved development shall not exceed 7.3 metres, as measured from existing ground level. Before any works commence on the site, a means of identifying the existing ground level on the site shall be agreed in writing, and any works required on site to mark that ground level accurately during construction works shall be implemented prior to any disturbance of the existing ground level. Any such physical works or marker shall be retained at all times during the construction period.

Reason: To establish existing ground level and therefore to avoid confusion in measuring the height of the approved development, and to ensure that the approved development does not have an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area.

REASON:That the proposals, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and above, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to the residential amenity of the neighbours, the visual amenity of the units and the locality and highway safety. As such, the proposal complies with policies SP6, SP7a, SP10, GP1, GP6 and GP15a of the City of York Development Control Local Plan (2005).

Erection of three storey building comprising 12  one bed apartments after demolition of warehouse (resubmission) [Micklegate Ward]

Members considered a major full application, submitted by Mr K Marsden, for the erection of a three storey building comprising 12 one bed room apartments after demolition of a warehouse (resubmission).

Representations were received, in objection, from a local resident who was speaking on behalf of himself and other local residents. He said that the former chapel was a building with many outstanding architectural features and there was no reason to approve demolition of the building. It was a unique and irreplaceable building that fitted well into the streetscape.

Representations were received, in objection, from Councillor Julie Gunnell who was speaking as Ward Councillor on behalf of local residents. She stated that this was an important Victorian building and need not be demolished.  She said that residents had serious concerns that the proposed development would not fit into the local landscape. There were also concerns regarding parking.

Members felt that it would be quite acceptable and possible to convert the former chapel into residential accommodation. There had been sympathetic conversions of similar buildings in the past and they saw no reason to demolish the chapel.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.¹

REASON:                  1.The proposed use would lead to the loss of an  employment site as identified by Policy E3b. It has not been adequately demonstrated that the site could not be retained within employment use and as such the proposal would be contrary to the objectives of the City of York Development Control Local Plan which seeks to stimulate the local economy, provide employment opportunities and deliver sustainable employment premises and in particular policy E3b which seeks to retain employment sites.

                                    2. The proposed provision of 12 one bed room flats would fail to assist in delivering the type of dwellings which the Strategic Housing Market Assessment identifies as being required in the City (family housing). Also given the size of the site a greater mix of dwelling types could be achieved on site. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy PPS3: ‘Housing’ which advises that Local Planning Authorities should adopt an evidence based approach to housing delivery, through housing market assessments and also to Policy H3c of the City of York Development Control Local Plan which requires a mix of housing types on all suitable sites.

                                    3. The proposal would, by reason of its design and appearance, result in an incongruous form of development that would be out of character with the street scene and, given its prominence, would be harmful to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the area generally contrary to policy GP1, H4a of the City of York Development Control Local Plan and planning guidance issued in PPS 1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’.

                                    4. It is considered likely that the existing building contains bat roosts. No bat emergence survey nor any details of methods of working and development to accommodate them has been submitted.  The proposal is therefore likely to harm a species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5c

Erection of part two storey, part single storey detached dwelling following demolition of existing bungalow [Rural West York Ward]

Members considered a full application, submitted by Mr Andrew Simpkin, for the erection of a part two storey, part single storey detached dwelling following demolition of the existing bungalow.

The planning officer updated the sub-committee with the following information:

1. Report on Solar Calculation

A report on solar calculations had been submitted by the applicant, copies of which were circulated to Members. This used the IESVE (Integrated Environmental Solutions LTD) thermal modelling software which is not a system recognised by the City Council Planning Department. In calculating loss of day light and sunlight the Planning Department, along with most other British Councils use the British Research Establishment Digest 209 to weigh up loss of light. The IESVE data appears highly diagrammatic, has no scale and no quantifiable measures. Members will therefore need to decide how much weight to give to this document.

Notwithstanding the above, concerns regarding massing and bulk in the two storey front projection would still be applicable.

2. Request For The Provision Of Affordable Housing

The Rural Housing Enabling Team have requested that two houses be provided on the site as it measures above the threshold. However this is not considered to be practical.

Representations were received, in objection,  from a local resident who spoke on behalf of her mother. She said that the proposed development did not meet the requirements of the Knapton Village Design Statement. It would mean a loss of light to her mother’s property and a loss of symmetry to the streetscape. The proposed development would cause a loss of amenity. be overbearing and devalue neighbouring properties. Concerns were also raised in relation to the shared wall of the garage.

Representations were received, in support,  from the applicant who said that the existing property had been empty for four years and was in poor condition. He said that the only option was to demolish it and redevelop the site. He did not feel that there would be any adverse impact on the surrounding area as there was no uniform building line in Main Street.

Representations were received, in support,  from Councillor Moore, the applicant’s Ward Councillor. He stated that the proposed development would not be out of character with the surrounding area. He circulated photographs of nearby properties. He said that the new building would not be obtrusive or have any visual impact on the streetscape.

Members delegated the imposition of relevant conditions to officers.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved with the following conditions:¹

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

Location Plan; 1486 PL01/02/03/04/05/06

Or any plans or details subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority as amendment to the approved plans.

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

2.      The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of the three years from the date of the permission.

Reason: To ensure compliance with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5d