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 business on the agenda.

Councillor Moore declared a personal and non prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4b (Clifton Hospital: Outstanding Section 106 in relation to management of the landscape) in his work with Clifton Without Parish Council in relation to this.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 15 April 2010.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on the 15 April 2010 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

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 12 May 2010 at 5pm.

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

Details of speakers registered to speak on the planning applications will be recorded under the relevant application.

To determine the following planning applications related to the East Area.

This application is for the erection of a pair of semi-detached houses following demolition of an existing dormer bungalow.

Members considered an application for the erection of a pair of semi detached houses following the demolition of an existing dormer bungalow. This application had been amended from a previous application presented to the Committee in October 2009 and included an extension of the basement to incorporate a home office and additional storage space. The application had been brought to the committee by Councillor D’Agorne, as the Ward Member. He expressed concerns about the application relating to drainage, subsidence and multi occupancy and the precedents this would set.

Officers provided updated information at the meeting(full details of which are attached to the agenda for this item) relating to additional conditions which were not included in the report these were as follows:

• That a condition be added so that the basement level of the property, if approved, be restricted to avoid using the space as additional bedroom accommodation
• That a further condition be added to control the height of the development, ensuring that the existing ground level of the site be agreed in writing.

The updated information also provided additional comments from the applicant, in response to comments from local residents, responding to their points:

• That the application seeks to enable the implementation of a ‘sustainable homes’ planning condition.
• That the visual impact on the street scene remains the same
• That parking provision and density, which are key planning policies are complied with.
• That the application does not require a change of use for the site.
• That a requirement to obtain building regulations approval before granting planning permission would run contrary to the proper consideration of the application.
• That the planning authority has sufficient powers to introduce planning conditions to address any legitimate concerns that local residents might have,

Representations in opposition were heard from a local resident, Mr Farrant. He spoke about how he had major concerns about the application and stated that the depth of the basement proposed at 4 Derwent Road, would undermine the foundations of the immediate neighbouring properties at 2 and 6 Derwent Road. He questioned why there had been not been a hydrological study carried out on the site in relation to this. He suggested that the working hours of construction should be reduced from the times suggested on Monday to Friday from 8:00-18:00 to 8:00-17:00. Finally, he suggested that the new application should also focus on daylight provision in relation to the development of the basement.

Representations in support were heard from the applicant, Mr Breeze. He commented how he was seeking amended consent to address a condition relating to sustainable homes. He stated that the application was not for multi occupancy, and that if it was, then he would have to apply for further approval.

Councillor Cregan asked the applicant whether he would be willing to alter the hours of construction from 8:00-17:00.

The applicant responded that he was happy to alter them.

Councillor Taylor asked Officers to explain what the potential effects that this application would have on the foundations of neighbouring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64a

This report updates details the current action with regard to the outstanding Section 106 issues in relation to Clifton Hospital and provides details of the proposed Management plan for the site.

Members received an update on the discussions that have taken place with regard to the outstanding Section 106 issues in relation to Clifton Hospital.

Members were asked to note the progress made with regard to the completion of the Section 106 agreement and the work still required in order to achieve a satisfactory conclusion.

Members were asked to note that a further report would be prepared when the management plan is formally submitted to the Council for acceptance and any details are available with regard to the possible further land transfer.

Representations were heard from a member of Clifton Without Parish Council. He told Members that Parish Councillors felt sceptical as to what would happen with the Section 106. He added that the area in question was forlorn and that so far none of the obligations on the landowner had not been complied with. He added that he felt that there was a need for enforcement action to be taken on the landowners.

Further representations were heard from a local resident who stated that he was pleased with the work that the Countryside Officer, Bob Missin, had done already. He commented on issues surrounding the footpaths on the site and asked if the proposed footpath crossed a piece of land that was environmentally protected or not.  He questioned whether the footpaths on the site could be considered as Public Rights of Way.

Bob Missin told Members that the other routes on the site, asides from the proposed definitive route, were not rights of way although they may or may not have established rights on them. He explained if new routes were to be created then a large number of people would need to be involved to provide evidence for establishment of any rights of access. Additionally, the workload on existing footpath claims in York was very high and at the present time could take many years before it could be considered.

Finally he stated that the Committee could not impose permissive access on the land as part of the Section 106 agreement as they were separate issues.

Councillor Moore stated that he believed that no enforcement action was needed on the landowner, if other parts of the Section 106 agreement were in progress. He added that he was happy to contact the Legal department in relation to the creation of the new public footpath across the site and the land transfer.

Members suggested that individual comments on the Section 106 be passed on to relevant departments and that a representative from the Legal department be invited to address the Committee with an update on this in July.

RESOLVED:             (i)            That the report be noted.

(ii)That an update from the Legal department in relation to Public Rights of Way on the site and the land transfer is provided to the Committee for their July meeting.