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 that they might have in the business on the agenda.

Councillor Firth declared a personal non prejudicial interest in plans item 4a (Minster Alarms, Suncliffe House, 157 New Lane, Huntington) as his house alarm was provided by Minster Alarms.

Councillor Funnell declared a personal and prejudicial interest in plans item 4d (The Fossway, 187-189 Huntington Road) under the provisions of the Planning Code of Good Practice. She spoke from the floor as Ward Member after which she left the room and took no part in the discussion or vote on this item. 

Councillor Wiseman declared a personal non prejudicial interest in plans item 4d (The Fossway, 187-189 Huntington Road) as she knew the teacher from Huntington School who had submitted a letter in respect of this application.

Councillor Hyman declared a personal and prejudicial interest in plans item 4a (Minster Alarms, Suncliffe House, 157 New Lane, Huntington) as the owner of the property was a personal friend of his. He stood down from the Chair and left the room for this item and took no part in the discussion or vote on this application.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the East Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 14 October 2010.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the meeting of the East Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 14 October 2010 be approved and signed subject to Minute 27 (Enforcement Cases Update) being amended to include the following sentence.

“Some Members expressed concern about the high number of enforcement cases”.

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 10 November at 5.00 pm.

It was noted 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.

To determine the following planning applications related to the East 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.

This application is for to the conversion of the southern part of the ground floor of Suncliffe House for the sale of hot food providing a delivery service only.  [Huntington/New Earswick] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr Hazan Hazar, for a change of use of part of the ground floor of a two storey detached building from retail (use class A1) to sale of hot food (initially thought to be use class A5) for delivery purposes only.

Officers advised the Committee that following further investigation, it was clear that the proposed use did not fall within use class A5 as the proposed uses primary purpose was not for the sale of hot food to take away for consumption off the premises by visiting members of the public. The delivery to home service would involve the preparation of a product for sale which would be manufacturing with related distribution activity and was usually considered by inspectors to fall within use class B2 (General Industry). However given the potential for odours, it would fall outside class B1 (Business)

Officers explained that their recommendation and proposed conditions remained unchanged due to the change of use but asked the Committee to note that the application description should read “Change of Use of part ground floor from retail (use class A1) to hot food delivery-to-home service (use class B2). They also advised that Reference to Policy S6 should be replaced with Policy E4 (Employment development on Unallocated Land). This policy allows employment uses of a scale appropriate to the locality within defined settlement limits where it involves conversion of existing buildings. The requested that Condition 4 be amended to refer to the preparation and cooking of food for consumption off the premises by delivery only and for no other purpose.

They stated that the Environmental Protection Unit and Highway Network Management Team had been consulted and had raised no objections subject to conditions. They also advised that additional correspondence had been received from local residents reiterating their objection to the application on the basis of increased traffic, noise and smell and seeking a guarantee that the business would remain delivery only.  (A full copy of the officer’s update was published online with the agenda after the meeting)

Representations in objection to the application were received from a neighbour, speaking on behalf of residents of New Lane. He raised concerns that any further deliveries or increase in traffic would impact on safety at what was already a busy junction in a predominantly residential area with a lot of elderly residents. He also stressed that the increased noise and smell associated with the business would impact on residential amenity with the business operating 15 hours a day seven days a week. He questioned the viability of the business and raised concerns that the conditions may not be adhered to. He asked the Committee to refuse the application.

Members noted the concerns raised by the speaker. They acknowledged that the application had the potential for increased noise and disturbance leading to loss of amenity for local residents especially due to deliveries in the evening and noted the possible increase in traffic at a busy T junction and issues  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31a

This is a revised application for the erection of a pitched roof single storey extension to the side and rear. This application was originally refused by the Committee at their meeting on 9 September 2010. It has been referred to Committee due to the level of local interest.  [Hull Road]

Members considered a revised full application from Mr Mark Hutchinson, for a single storey side and rear extension (revised scheme).

Officers advised that they had received a further objection from a neighbour which reiterated concerns set out in the objections and raised the point that the student occupiers of a HMO do not contribute to the city through council tax and that the beneficiary was a landlord who lives outside York.

Representations were received from the applicant’s agent in support of the application. He circulated plans, which showed the extent of the previously refused application, the extent of the current proposals and also what was allowed under permitted development rights. He reminded Members that whether or not the property was let to students was not a planning consideration. 

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 the effect on the amenity and living conditions of adjacent occupiers and the impact on the streetscene. As such the proposal complies with Policies H7 and GP1 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan and the 'Guide to extensions and alterations to private dwelling houses' Supplementary Planning Guidance.

This is a full planning application for the erection of a two storey extension to the side of an existing residential nursing home (formerly the Kexby Bridge Hotel). The building is to provide high dependency care and rehabilitation for people with brain injuries at ground floor and care for dementia patients at first floor. [Derwent] [Site Visit]  

Members considered a full planning application by Mr Martin Taylor, for the erection of 26 high dependency units with associated facilities within a two storey extension to the side of the existing residential nursing home.

Officers provided the Committee with an update. They advised that the Sustainability Officer had confirmed that additional information submitted shows a commitment to BREEAM requirements and providing a proportion of energy from renewable sources therefore they were happy for appropriate conditions to be applied. They advised that this refers to conditions 10 and 11 of the report and that condition 10 be reworded to begin “prior to commencement” not “Prior to start”).

They advised the Committee that objectors had raised concerns about the poor electricity and water supply in the village and that the applicant had advised them that any requirements requested by the statutory services providers in relation to potential upgrades of existing supplies or new supplies to the site would be undertaken. A further letter from an objector stated that the amendments to the internal layout did not change their concerns about the development.

Officers advised that with reference to paragraph 4.21 of the report, Highways had raised no objections to the scheme as amended but recommended that an additional condition be added in respect of cycle parking areas and that draft condition 3 (HWAY9) be removed as surfaces were shown on the plans. They advised that Drainage Officers had raised objections due to the lack of information supporting the application. However, they believed that drainage of the site could be achieved, including the attenuation of drainage where necessary in principle, and suggested a condition be added to ensure that all drainage details were submitted and agreed before development commenced on the site.

Officers also advised that a condition should be added preventing a future increase in the number of bedrooms provided without the prior written approval through the submission of a formal planning application. (A full copy of the officer’s update had been published online with the agenda after the meeting)

Members questioned whether the extant permission for an extension to the original hotel was still valid since permission had been granted for change of use to a care home for the elderly and officers provided clarification on this issue. Members pointed out that the treatment plant would restrict the growth of tree roots and requested that a condition be added to stipulate the type of trees to be grown in this location.

Representations were received in objection to the application from a neighbour. She raised concerns over the plans to increase the scale of the care home as the owner had advised her previously that they had no plans to expand in size. She informed Members that the Retreat and other care homes provided care for sufferers of Alzheimer’s and other mental health issues. She explained that the water supply in the village was limited and the electricity voltage was low and demand from the care home for both services was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31c

This application has been made by the Living Word Church for the change of use of the Fossway Public House to a mixed use including a youth club (basement), day nursery (ground floor), a place or worship (ground floor) with associated office space (ground and first floor), 1 flat on the first floor and 1 flat on the second floor.

This application has been brought before the Committee by Councillor Funnell on the grounds that the benefit to the community of developing the building in the way proposed outweighs the concerns raised by the Highways Network Management. [Heworth] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr David Lavery for a change of use from a public house (use class A4) to a mixed use, which included a youth club, day nursery, place of worship with associated office space, 1 flat on the first floor and 1 flat on the second floor.

Officers provided the Committee with updated information, which had been received since the report was published. They advised that paragraphs 3.10 (should read 4.10) of the report should refer to 40 people not 40 families.

They stated that a response from the Council’s Family Information Service had been received which raised the following issues in relation to the proposed nursery;

• That the plans were basic and much information had been omitted.
• That the plans indicated car parking in the road, and that there were concerns regarding the dropping off and picking up of children on a main road.
• There was not an identified need for additional nursery provision in this area, although currently reassessing this with more up to date information available in Jan 2011.
• That 20 places in nursery was very small and viability may be difficult.
  There had been no indication on how the nursery would access the outdoor area – this would be important from security perspective & need for free flow play.
• That the baby room had a door which connects to the main entrance corridor for the church/main hall which would raise security concerns
• That the laundry was situated in an inappropriate area for the nursery.
• That no provision had been made for buggies and storage.

Officers advised that an e-mail had been received from the agent on 8 November and their comments in response to issues raised by the agent had been included within the officer’s update. They also advised the Committee that a further letter of objection had been received from a local nursery owner, which stated that there was not a need for another nursery in the area and raised concerns over the job security of her employees, if another nursery was to open in close proximity.

Officers advised that a further letter of support had been received from Dodsworth Area Residents Association (DARA) offering their support and the support of the Muncaster Area Residents’ Associations in support to the initiative of the Living Word Church to purchase and convert the building and transform it into a community facility and church. They noted that the inclusion of childcare facilities, space for community uses as well as scope for debt advice, marriage guidance and youth work by trained members of its congregation would be valuable to those living in their respective association areas. This letter was circulated to Members for their information. (A full copy of the officer’s update was published online with the agenda after the meeting)

A revised parking survey had been received from the agents on the day of the meeting and so had not been fully reviewed. Highway Officers did however note that it had been conducted on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31d

This application seeks planning permission for a change of use from a shop (Class A1) to a hot food takeaway (Class A5). 

This application has been referred to the East Area Planning Sub Committee due to the high level of local interest in the proposal.  [Huntington/New Earswick] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application from Mr Imam Harman for a change of use from retail (use class A1) to hot food takeaway (use class A5) and the provision of external extract flue.

Officers updated that, as outlined in the Committee Report a specialist extraction consultant had produced a document regarding the installation of a ventilation system to control odour without creating a nuisance through noise.  Officers advised that the Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) had examined this report and made comments on the document. Officers conveyed these comments to the Committee and confirmed that the EPU was happy that it would be feasible to install a suitable system but noted that exact details of what would be installed had not yet been agreed.

Officers drew Members attention to the revised list of suggested conditions which had been republished with the agenda noting that Condition 4 required an extraction system to be agreed and installed prior to the hot food takeaway coming into use and thereafter being maintained. Officers provided Members with clarification on the proposed siting of the extraction system and the intended hours of operation. (A full copy of the officer’s update was published online with the agenda after the meeting)

Representations in objection to the application were received from a neighbour. She reminded Members that a previous application for a hot food take away on this site had been refused due to concerns surrounding  noise, litter and smells. She stated that the existing drainage system would not be able to cope with commercial waste produced by the takeaway and questioned whether there was in fact demand for such an outlet stating that no survey had been carried out. She pointed out that the Spar shop closes at 10pm but that the amenity of local residents would be affected by the take away remaining open until 11pm with potential for an increase in problems of anti social behaviour in the area.

Representations in support of the application were also received from the applicant’s agent. He stated that they had made every effort to overcome any issues or concerns raised regarding the application and all issues raised with regard to the previous refused application had been dealt with through changes to the design or revised opening hours. He clarified that the EPU has raised no objections as the proposal would meet the required standards and that concerns raised about drainage were unfounded as no objections had been raised by the relevant body. He noted residents’ concerns over litter but expressed the opinion that litter was not normally a problem linked to hot food outlets.

Representations were also received from Councillor Runciman, Ward Councillor for Huntington and New Earswick on behalf of local residents who had raised concerns regarding litter, general disturbance, noise and smells. She referred to this area being a ward hot spot due to incidents which had taken place and general anti social behaviour. She stated that although there had only been a few incidents in the last few  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31e

This is a revised planning application, following a previous refusal in March 2010. The application is to convert an existing outbuilding to one self-contained residential unit. It also involves the erection of a single storey extension and the demolition of the existing flat roof garage to create an enclosed patio area. [Heworth]

Members considered a revised application by Mr Gordon Harrison to convert an existing outbuilding to a self-contained residential unit and the erection of a single storey extension and the demolition of the existing flat roof garage to create an enclosed patio area.

With reference to paragraph 1.2, Officers provided an update regarding access to the site. They advised that there were two ways to gain access into the site, with the main access being via the service road at the back of 69 Fourth Avenue with access also possible from Fourth Avenue via an alleyway.

Officers informed the Committee that the contamination assessment report requested by the Environmental Protection team had been submitted and Environmental Protection had confirmed that there was no issue with the use of the land for residential subject to informatives relating to contamination, and noise on construction sites.

They also advised that Heworth Planning Panel had responded to the consultation and had not raised objections but stated that the scheme should not set a precedent for more residential development in an area next to a service road in an unsuitable environment. (A full copy of the officer’s update was been published online with the agenda after the meeting.)

Representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent. He circulated plans of the proposed work and a photograph for Members information. He reminded the Committee that planning policy encourages the re-use of old buildings. He stressed that this was a stand alone proposal, which was different to other schemes. He advised Members that that the building was not disused but had been in constant use as a builders store and stated that this area was predominantly of residential use.

Representations were also received from Councillor Potter, Ward Member for Heworth. She spoke in objection to the application on behalf of local residents. She stated that the proposals were not substantially different to the application which was refused earlier in the year and that the reasons for refusal on that occasion still applied. She raised concerns over access to the proposed property and voiced the opinion that it was overdevelopment.

Members agreed that that the proposals were a good example of a small property, that it was a sustainable and attractive design and that the change of use of this building to residential would be better for the area than its current use.

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 residential and visual amenity, impact on the living conditions of future occupants and highway safety. As such the proposal complies with national planning advice contained within Planning Policy Statements 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development") and 3 ("Housing"), and Policies H4A, GP1, GP3, GP4A, GP9, GP10, L1C and NE1 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.