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.

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

Councillor Pierce declared a personal and non prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4c, University of York, as a former member of staff and current student at the University.

Councillor Cregan declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4f, Nestlé Rowntree, as he is in receipt of a small pension from Nestlé.  He left the room for this item and did not take any part in discussions thereon.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 13 August 2009.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on the 13 August 2009 be approved and signed as a correct record by the Chair.

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered their wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the Sub-Committee’s remit 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 9 September at 5 pm.

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

The application seeks planning permission to erect a three-bedroom detached bungalow in what is currently part of the rear gardens of 291 and 293 Fifth Avenue.  The bungalow would front Appleby Place.  Two car parking spaces are proposed to serve the property.[Heworth] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application for the erection of a three bedroomed detached bungalow located in part of the rear gardens of 291 and 293 Fifth Avenue.

Councillor Cregan left the meeting at this point and was not present for this item along with subsequent items, 4f, Nestlé Rowntree, 5 Appeals Performance and 6 Urgent Business.

Officers updated Members by saying that Heworth Planning Panel and the Environmental Protection Unit had no objections to the application. They stated that there had been no response from the Drainage Board but that the proposal incorporated advice given by the Council’s Drainage Engineers at the pre-application stage, and includes provision for on-site storage and controlled discharge of surface water, permeable surfacing and rainwater harvesting, all of which were covered in condition 9.

Officers reported that representations in the form of 20 letters of objection from residents and a petition signed by 30 people against the application had been received.  They stated that the main concerns from residents were that the application would;

• Infringe on their security on Appleby Place through creating an access way into Fifth Avenue, which could then create a hiding place for criminals.
• The building works would create stress and disturbance to the elderly residents who occupy the houses in Appleby Place.
• The proposal could result in additional flooding and congestion in Appleby Place.
• The proposal could block access for emergency vehicles.
• The house could be occupied by students or children whose lifestyles could conflict with elderly residents desire for peace and quiet.
• The proposal would result in a loss of a parking area used by local residents
• It would harm privacy and dormers could be added in the future and that infill development would be contrary to Council Policy. 

Officers also stated that a representation in opposition had been received from Councillor Potter, as the local Ward Member, who suggested that the Committee should not delegate the decision to Officers in light of numerous representations of opposition from residents. She also advised that residents felt that the application was overdevelopment.

Members were told by Officers that the consultation period for the application expires on 18 September and the reason for why the application had been brought to Committee was to ensure that a decision was made within the 8 week period.  They added that negotiations had resulted in a revised drawing, which made relatively minor charges to the proposal through the introduction of hipped roofs and alterations to the parking arrangements. They advised that Officers intentions were to issue the decision under delegated powers (if approved) only if no new objections are received to the proposal.

They referred to condition 11 which required a financial contribution for Lifelong Learning and Leisure towards the provision of play facilities and open space. They also drew Members attention to the addition of restricted hours of work and stated that the standard demolition and construction informative could also be attached.

Officers also stated that condition 10 was incorrectly worded and should refer to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24a

Permission is sought for the use of 0.7 ha of land (1.04 ha including the access road) for the stationing of 20 touring caravans. The proposal would form an extension of an existing caravan site granted for 20 pitches in June 2005. Members may recall that this application was withdrawn from committee in January 2009. This application is essentially the same proposal but is supported by additional information.[Heworth Without] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application for the use of land for the stationing of 20 additional touring caravans and camping pitches at York Caravan Park.

The Officer updated Members by stating that two additional letters of support had been received, including one from the Chairman of Visit York, which was circulated to Members at the meeting.

A question was raised as to whether the Council allows touring caravans and tents to use parts of its public parks.

It was understood that there were two sites when this was allowed, at Rowntree Park and at the Knavesmire.

The agent for the applicant addressed Members and made a reference that that two years ago the Council had agreed on a previous application to allow hard standings for caravans and an amenity building. He emphasised the contribution that the Caravan Park was making to the economy of York and that it was well run, sustainable and was in demand.  In his view these were capable of constituting very special circumstances to justify the granting of planning permission within the Green Belt.  He also stated that there was a lack of supply of sites for camping and caravanning in York generally.

Members asked the agent if the lack of supply of sites for campers in York was common and if there was any evidence sent to Officers to prove this.

The agent replied that there was no information on a lack of sites in York as a whole given to Officers.

Members highlighted the Council’s Policy V5 in Paragraph 4.12 that it “specifies that the number of pitches should not exceed 20” and asked the Officer whether he was aware of sites in the city, which were also located in the Green Belt, that exceeded this number.

The Officer replied that he was not aware of any sites in the Green Belt that had been approved with a number exceeding 20 pitches.

Members asked about the flood risk to the site and highlighted Paragraph 5.2, which talked about how there was a discrepancy between the location of the site on the Environment Agency’s Flood Zone Map and the map of the Council’s own Flood Risk Assessment. 

The Officer advised Members that the Environment Agency’s only objection to the proposal was from surface drainage water, not the flooding aspect.

The agent for the applicant commented that the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Zone maps tended to be broad and could only be defined on the topography of the site. He stated that the Caravan Park was in Flood Zone 2.

Certain Members asked about the planning permission for the existing caravan storage and the use of the lake on the site.

The agent replied that there was planning permission granted to permit the storage of caravans in a building on the site and that it was specifically for the purpose of storage. He added that the lake was purely decorative.

Some Members commented on how the agent had suggested that the Council Policy V5 of the City  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24b

This application proposes the extension and formal laying out of Car Park South at the existing Heslington West campus. This will provide 340 car parking spaces and 7 disabled accessible spaces, together with access barriers and the realignment of part of Goodricke Way, the main access into the campus from Heslington Lane. The proposal also includes landscaping and the relocation of a small compound used for the storage of materials by the University Grounds Maintenance Department. [Heslington] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application for an extension and laying out of a car park providing 347 car parking spaces, installation of access barriers and widening of part of Goodricke Way, together with landscaping and relocation of a materials compound.

The Officer updated Members and stated that if the application was approved that amendments would be made to conditions; 4, details of the car park barriers to be agreed prior to installation, 6, that the overall cap on car parking spaces of 1520 should not be exceeded at all times, 7, that details of boundary treatment would include reference to existing trees overhanging the boundary of 15 Walnut Close and 8, that the height of the storage bays, including the materials stored within them shall not exceed 1.75 metres, to be measured from a ground level to be agreed in writing.

The agent for the applicant answered Members questions on a range of issues including; the decommissioning of car parking spaces, the control of car parking users through permits and smart cards and the discrepancy between the location of spaces and the material store on plans and reports provided.

She reported that the process of decommissioning of car parking spaces from other sites on the University campus to be relocated into the proposed car park had already started.  In response to a question of whether the number of spaces would be reduced at the same time as the proposed extension of the existing car park, she said that a survey on campus spaces is conducted on an annual basis and that the spaces would be allocated according to the home addresses of those who use them. She added that as a result of this process, there would be a reduction in traffic through Heslington village.

So far as to controlling the usage of the car park was concerned, the agent added that students would not have to pay for permits but that as part of the University travel plan, staff would be allocated a certain car park which would be closest to their point of entry onto the campus from the city.  The access to the car parks would be controlled by the use of a Smart Card to make sure that users parked in their allocated area.  The agent advised Members that the Smart Card scheme would not start until the other proposed car parks across the campus had been constructed.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the officer’s report and the following amended/additional conditions. ¹

                                    Condition 4 -  Prior to their installation, details shall be agreed with the LPA of the barrier equipment to be installed at the entrance to the car park, together with the methods of managing and controlling access by students and staff.

Reason – In the interests of highway safety and to ensure effective management of parking demand within the University campus.

Condition 6 – At all times the total number of car parking spaces within Heslington West Campus  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24c

This application is for the creation of 2 two storey dwellings to the rear of 95 and 97 Heslington Lane [Fishergate] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application for the creation of 2 two storey dwellings to the rear of 95 and 97 Heslington Lane.

An adjacent resident made representations in opposition to the proposal. He stated that the proposed development would overshadow his property, which would result in a reduction of natural light.  He added to this that in his view a scientific daylight/sunlight assessment on the effect of the proposed dwellings on neighbouring properties should be requested. He finally stated that if the proposal was erected in an alternative location as a single storey bungalow it would have less impact on the character and amenity of Barmby Avenue.

The Architect of the proposed dwelling spoke on behalf of the applicant, who was not in attendance.  He circulated a diagram to members, the neighbour in opposition and the Ward Member showing the proposed dwellings in relation to 3 Barmby Avenue and pointing out that the nearest dwelling would not breach a line drawn at 45 degrees from the nearest window.

Councillor D’Agorne spoke as Ward Member and expressed his concerns to Members about allowing the development. He stated that the growing number of landlord owned student properties in the area was adversely affecting the lives of local residents. He added that in relation to parking issues, in a previous application for a two storey extension at 97 Heslington Lane included a double garage within the application site for the proposed dwellings, raising concerns that parking provision for the existing dwelling may not be adequate.  He was concerned that the previously intended layout was now being changed. He also added that the orientation of the proposed dwelling would mean that there would be a variance in light levels between the winter and summer months. He urged the committee to reject the application on the grounds of harm to the surrounding area.

The Officer responded to the representations in opposition to the proposal and the Ward Member by stating that the previous application for 97 Heslington Lane, had not included the erection of the double garage. He added that Highways Officers were satisfied that parking standards would be met.

In response to Members queries in relation to daylight/sunlight assessments, the Officer stated that such assessments are not a statutory requirement but are a local requirement introduced by Council’s within North Yorkshire, and are only required in relation to developments that are within 2 metres of a residential boundary and are higher than a single storey. This was not the case with the present application.

Councillor Watt asked that his vote against the approval be recorded.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report and the following additional condition.¹

                                    Condition 16- Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a minimum of 5% of the expected energy demand for the development hereby approved shall be provided through on site renewable generation for heat and/or electricity.  Prior to the commencement of development, a statement outlining how  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24d

This proposal is for the erection of five storey side extension and three storey front extension to provide additional 42 bedrooms, replacement of existing bedroom windows and erection of single storey restaurant extension, entrance canopy, cycle shelter and associated landscaping works. [Fishergate] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application for the erection of a five storey side extension and a three storey front extension to provide an additional 42 bedrooms, replacement of existing bedroom windows and erection of single storey restaurant extension, entrance canopy, cycle shelter and associated landscaping works.

Officers updated Members by recommending that a condition to restrict the hours of construction be included should planning permission be granted.

The agent for the applicant advised Members that there had been extensive local consultation on the new extensions and that response had generally been positive. He added that the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring, William Court, had been considered by the proposals. He added that the hotel facility made a valuable contribution to tourism in York.

Members indicated that they were happy with the current application in light of improvements that had been made since the previously refused application. They asked about the maintenance of the proposed grass roof and whether the condition proposed to cover this would provide control past five years.

Officers replied and said that five years was a standard time period used in respect of landscaping conditions and that a specific time frame had to be stated within the condition in order to comply with national guidance on planning conditions.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to an amended and additional condition alongside the conditions listed in the Officer’s report.¹

(i)        Condition 26- Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, there shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development prior to the completion of the approved surface water drainage works and no buildings shall be occupied or brought into use prior to completion of the approved foul drainage works.

Reason: To ensure that no foul or surface water discharges take place until proper provision has been made for their disposal

(ii)      Condition 29- All demolition and construction works, vehicular access and ancillary operations, including deliveries to and dispatch from the site shall be confined to the following hours:

Monday to Friday08.00-18.00

Saturday 09.00-13.00

Not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residents

REASON:                  1.In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the officers report, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to design, appearance and impact on the conservation area, parking and highway safety, servicing and environmental protection considerations, residential amenity, flood risk, sustainability, planning against crime, archaeology and local wildlife. As such the proposal complies with Policies Y1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV5, ENV9, E1, E6, T2 and T5 of the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026, and Policies SP3, SP8, GP1, GP3 and GP4A, GP4B, GP9, GP11, GP15, NE8, NE2, HE2, HE10, T4, T7C, T12, T13A, V1, V3 and V4 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.

                                    2.The Developer’s attention should also be drawn to the various requirements for the control of noise  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24e

This application relates to proposed car parking, security centre and ancillary development including revised internal road network. [Clifton]

Members considered a major full application for proposed car parking, security centre and ancillary development including a revised internal road network.

Officers updated Members by saying that the applicants had submitted drawings for a redesigned entrance on Wigginton Road to further increase stacking capacity for vehicles within the site.  They recommended that if Members approved the application that a surface water drainage condition should be added.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to additional conditions alongside those listed in the Officer’s report .¹

                                    Condition 7- The car parks hereby approved shall not be occupied until the areas shown on the approved plans for parking and manoeuvring of vehicles (and cycles, if shown) have been constructed and laid out in accordance with these approved plans, and thereafter such areas shall be retained solely for such purposes.

                                    Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

                                    Condition 8- Within 1 month of the car parking hereby being approved being brought into use, the use of the existing car parking being shown as removed in the supporting information shall cease.

                                    Reason: In order to ensure that the level of car parking on the site does not exceed City of York Council Annex E maximum parking standards and to encourage staff and visitors of the site to arrive by non car modes of travel thus promoting sustainable travel in line with local and national transportation policies (PPG13 Transport).

                                    Condition 9- Development shall not begin until details of the surface water drainage works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and carried out in accordance with these approved details.

                                    Sufficient information should be provided by the Developer to determine the potential impact the proposals may have on the existing drainage systems,

                                    Details to include:

1.      Calculations and invert levels of the existing surface water system should be provided together with details to include calculations and inert levels of the proposals for the new development.

2.      Additional surface water shall not be connected to any foul/combined sewer, if a suitable water sewer is available.

3.      Existing and proposed surfacing and ground levels to Ordnance Datum should be specified.

4.      Details of run off rates including calculations of both the existing and proposed rates.

5.      Surface water run-off from the development shall be attenuated to 70% of the existing rate, in accordance with a scheme to reduce run off to be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority (based on a 140 l/s/ha of connected impermeable areas).  If connection.  The scheme submitted shall include storage volume calculations, using computer modelling, allowing for a 1:30 year storm with no surface flooding, along with no internal flooding of buildings or surface run-off from the site in a 1:100 year storm. Proposed areas within the model shall also include an additional 20% allowance for climate change.  The modelling shall use a range of storm durations, with both summer and winter profiles, to find the worst-case volume required.

6.      Details of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24f

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 12-month and 3 month periods to 31^st July 2009 and provides a summary of the salient points from appeals determined in the 3  month period. It is intended that a quarterly report will be presented to regularly update Members on appeals determined in the previous 3 month period.

Members considered a report which informed them of the Council’s performance in relation to appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate in the 12 month and 3 month periods to 31^st July 2009.

Members welcomed the report and commented that they also wished the report to include outstanding appeals, and that this information could be produced in a graph or table.

RESOLVED:             That Members noted the report and agreed Option A as follows:

Option A – Members to receive quarterly reports with an annex of case summaries.

REASON:                  So that Members can continue to be advised of appeal decisions within the City of York Council Area and be informed of the planning issues surrounding each case for future reference in determining planning applications.