Agenda and minutes

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.

Councillors Hyman and Orrell declared personal non prejudicial interests in Agenda Item 5a) Plot 5, Monks Cross Drive as they had met with the agent and the applicant but had not expressed opinions about the application.

Councillor Warters declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 5b) 5 Millfield Court, Millfield Lane following an “animated” discussion he had with the applicant’s architect. He withdrew from the meeting during the consideration of the item.

No other interests were declared.

Members considered a full major application from Cloverleaf Restaurants Limited for the erection of a part two storey restaurant, part single storey public house with associated residential and staff accommodation, car parking and landscaping.

In their update to Members, Officers stated that the description of the application should be altered to “the erection of a two storey building to provide amenity restaurant/public house at ground floor with  first floor ancillary residential and staff accommodation and  associated car parking and landscaping”. It was reported that Highways Network Management raised no objections to a revised plan submitted by the applicant, which showed car parking reduced to 81 spaces. There would also be an overspill area which would be surfaced differently to the car park, along with dedicated pedestrian and cycle routes. Officers suggested that an appropriate condition could be attached to the planning permission to ensure the reduction in car parking spaces. It was also reported that the Council’s Landscape Architect was generally satisfied with the amended plans, subject to minor alterations to some species of trees on the site.

Members questioned whether the temporary car park, as mentioned in the Officer’s report, would be retained. It was confirmed that the temporary car park would not be retained. Other Members expressed concerns about the possible effect that the new building would have on the vitality of Ryedale Stadium nearby, given that it would offer similar facilities. Officers responded that planning considerations in this case were restricted to  the impact of the proposal on the vitality and viability of businesses in the city centre.

Representations in support of the application were received from the applicant. He stated how the site had been chosen as it was seen as a key business employment site, and due to his company’s experience in the development of similar restaurants on business parks. He outlined that the company hoped that the new restaurant could offer other facilities such as breakfast seminars, which were not easily accessible or suitable, on or near the site. Finally he stated that the development would create seventy new jobs and that half of these would be for full time posts. The applicant also thanked Council Officers for their professional advice in the development of the scheme.

In response to a question for clarification on the use of the building for conference purposes, the applicant explained to Members that areas of the restaurant would be multifunctional to allow for business meetings to take place. The applicant added that the company already offered this service at other sites across the country. In response to a question regarding drainage, Officers confirmed that Yorkshire Water  raised no objections to the application.

Members felt that the application could boost local employment and could act as a catalyst for other businesses in the area. Some Members expressed concern that the application might draw people away from other facilities in the city when looking for conference and seminar venues.

RESOLVED:       That the application be approved with standard Highways Conditions 1,7,10,18,19,29,31  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9a

Members considered a revised application for a single storey rear extension, cycle store and conversion of garage to bedroom from Mr Alan Ellis.

Some Members questioned the reasons  why the application was called in for consideration by the Committee, and also noted that it had not been called in by the relevant Ward Member. Officers confirmed that under the scheme of delegation any Member could call in a planning application for consideration by the Committee. In this particular case the reasons given for the call-in were referred to the Assistant Director, who had agreed that the application should be determined by the Planning Committee.

Officers read out a letter from the architect which stated that the timber boundary fence belonged to the neighbouring property in Burniston Grove, but that it could not have been erected without the applicant’s permission. He considered that the application was a trivial matter of no significance and that planning permission should be granted.

Representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s architect.  In his view, the visual impact on the neighbouring property was negligible, and he welcomed the application being considered by the committee following a previous refusal under the Officer’s delegation scheme.

Some Members felt that the application would impinge on the space of neighbouring properties, whereas other Members felt that that the extension was of a relatively small size.

RESOLVED:       That the application be refused.

REASON:           The proposed single storey extension would immediately abut the rear garden boundary of 9 Burniston Grove. Because the property has a relatively short garden the extension would be positioned approximately 7 metres from the main rear ground floor opening of that property. Notwithstanding its relatively low height, it is considered that if the development were approved it would, when combined with previous development at the site, lead to the adjoining property and garden being unacceptably enclosed and result in an outlook that would be dominated by a localised level of built development that in scale, form and proximity goes beyond what is considered to be acceptable in this location. As such the proposal conflicts with policy GP1 (criterion a, b, c and i) and H7 (criterion d and e) of the City of York Draft Local Plan (fourth set of changes) approved April 2005.

Members considered a full application from Mrs Maria Farrugia for the temporary siting for five years, of a public ice rink on a coach park adjacent to the York Designer Outlet.

Various documents were circulated to Members, including photographs of examples of indiscriminate parking taken by the Parish Council and a memorandum from a Highways Officer in relation to the application. These documents were subsequently attached to the agenda, which was then republished online.

In their update to Members, Officers highlighted an error in page 42 of the report at paragraph 4.5. The reference to 2 Naburn Lane should be replaced with 32 Naburn Lane. They also suggested that if approved, condition 12, relating to times of  operation of the ice resurfacer be changed from 09:00 to 22:00 to 08:00 to 22:00.

Discussion between Members and Officers took place relating to highways issues, specifically indiscriminate parking on the site and in Naburn Lane. Some Members suggested that if approved, a condition be added to planning permission relating to the management of the coach park. Other Members questioned whether such a condition could be enforced,  and whether it would prevent unauthorised parking on other parts of the site.

Representations in support were received from the applicant. She outlined the hours of operation of the ice rink, stated that the event would use mains electricity and that parking for the rink would be managed by staff from the Designer Outlet. In response to concerns about traffic, she added that the majority of visitors that used the ice rink had also travelled to shop at the Designer Outlet, and that overall there did not seem to be a significant increase in traffic numbers.

Representations were received from a local resident. He expressed concerns about control of noise from the site and traffic management, specifically parking. He felt that even though there had been previous noise problems with the electrical generator, the use of mains electricity would still not mask the noise of music on the site. He suggested that if Members were minded to approve the application, that generators should only be used in an emergency situation. The resident suggested that if the application was approved parking on the verges of Naburn Lane should be monitored closely to reduce possible danger to highway users.

Representations in objection were received from another local resident. He expressed his concerns about light and noise disturbance, and the affect that this had on his right to privacy, due to the proximity of the site to his property.

Representations were received on behalf of Fulford Parish Council. They referred to the location of the site in the Green Belt and questioned whether the facilities associated with the ice rink were desirable rather than essential. She also considered that the additional structures amounted to operational development, and that as such,  a Design and Access statement should have been  submitted with the application. Additionally, the loss of the coach park would add to parking problems for local residents.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9c

Members considered a full major application from York Cricket and Rugby Union Football Club for the variation of condition 2 of planning permission 08/01930/FULM for a new club house building to allow minor amendments to increase the floor space of phase two(members bar).

Some Members  referred to objections to the application from residents which had been made on the basis of visual amenity and potential noise disturbance due to the relocation of the function room inside the club house to the front of the building. Some Members questioned whether the windows at the front of the building could remain closed during a function to decrease the impact of the disturbance.

Other Members pointed out that the Committee could not condition the use of windows in this way, as it would be a Licensing rather than Planning matter.

Officers were asked about the screening provided by trees on the site, and suggested that the applicant be made to provide a replacement tree at the entrance to the site as part of any landscaping scheme.

RESOLVED:       That the application be approved.

REASON:           In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to:

-         the openness of the Green Belt

-         the character of appearance of the Conservation Area

-         neighbouring amenity; and

-         car parking

As such the proposal complies with Policies GB1, GB13, GP1, GP4a and HE3 of the City of York Development Control Plan.