Agenda and minutes

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

Councillor Horton declared a personal and prejudicial interest in plans item 3a (Bright Street Post Office, 37 Stamford Street East) as the architect is a neighbour of his. He stood down from the Chair and left the room for this item and took no part in the debate or vote on this application.

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, in this case 5:00pm on Tuesday 14 December 2010. 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.

There were no registrations to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme on general issues within the remit of the Sub-Committee.

To determine the following planning applications related to the West and City Centre Area.

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.

Conversion and alterations of existing post office and dwelling to create 2 dwellings [Holgate Ward]

Members considered a full application from Mr Chris Cook for the conversion and alterations of the existing post office and dwelling to create two dwellings.

Officers briefed Members on the proposal and stated that although concerns had been raised about the loss of a three bed house, the Strategic Housing Market Assessment showed a need for both two and three bed houses and this proposal would lead to a net gain of one dwelling.

Representations were received from the applicant’s architect in support of the application. He drew Members attention to a similar development of a betting shop on Bright Street which had been successfully divided into two units. He indicated that the cost of retaining the property as a three bedroom house would be prohibitive and not therefore economically viable and that amenity space was also tight. He stated that the property had been on the market since 2008 and this proposal was for an affordable scheme.

Representations were also received from Councillor Alexander on behalf of residents. He raised concerns that a lot of planning applications were being received for the subdivision of houses and there was a need to retain family housing in the area. He stated that dividing this property into two units would prevent it being used as a family home in the future.

In response to a query from Members, officers explained that development costs, ie the fact that the cost of the development of a property into a family house would make it unviable, could be taken into consideration as a planning issue but that it was up to Members how much weight they placed on this issue. They also confirmed that the Strategic House Market Assessment did not take account of sub areas when looking at housing need. 

One Member expressed her concern about the size of the planned accommodation, particularly the first floors of the properties. She stated that the plans showed two double bedrooms but stated these were very small rooms with no outlook for one of the flats other than the back yard. She voiced the opinion that more respect should be given to the amount of space a person needs to live in.

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

REASON:                  The proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the report, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to: principle of development; design; residential amenity; sustainability; and flood risk. As such the proposal complies with Policies GP1, GP4a, GP15a, H4a, L1c and S9 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.

This report (presented to both Sub Committees and Main Planning Committee) informs Members of the Council’s performance in relation to appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate in the 3-month period up to 31^st October 2010, and provides a summary of the salient points from appeals determined in that period. A list of outstanding appeals as at 31^st October 2010 is also included.

Consideration was given to a report, which was also being presented to the main Planning Committee and East Area Planning Sub-Committee informing Members of the Council’s performance in relation to appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate in the 3 month period up to 31 October 2010. The report also provided a summary of the salient points from the appeals determined in that period together with a list of outstanding appeals as at 31 October 2010.

RESOLVED:             That the report be noted.

REASON:                  To update Members on appeal decisions within the City of York Council area and inform them of the planning issues surrounding each case for future reference in determining planning applications.