Agenda and minutes

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

Councillor Douglas declared a personal non prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4c) Kent Street Coach Park, as a former Council representative on the Fire Authority. Councillors Funnell and Hyman also declared the same interest.

Councillor Warters declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4a) 295 Hull Road, but asked the Chair if she would allow him to address the Committee. She granted this request.

Councillor Wiseman declared a personal non prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4d) 238 Strensall Road, as a Ward Member and Parish Councillor. She clarified that she did not see or discuss any plans that had come to Parish Council meetings in relation to the application.

No other interests were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 5 January 2012.

RESOLVED:                That the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 5 January 2012 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record subject to the following amendment to minute item 41 (Urgent Business);

                                      “In response to concerns unanimously raised by the Sub Committee to attend planning meetings if requested, the Chair confirmed that she would formally write to the Cabinet Member for City Strategy to request that a representative from the Highways department be available to attend Planning meetings.”

The Chair updated the Committee on a response that she had received from the Council’s Highways Department about their non attendance at planning meetings. It was reported that the department did not attend meetings due to being understaffed. The Chair stated to Members that she felt that this was an unsatisfactory reply.

Councillor Watson also informed Members that he had also written to Highways Officers, in his role as Chair of Main Planning Committee.

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 requestedto contact the Democracy Officer on the contact details listed at the foot of this agenda. The deadline for registering is Wednesday 1 February 2012 at 5.00 pm.

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

This is a full application for a two storey rear and side extensions. This application was originally considered by the Committee at their January meeting, where it was decided that the application be deferred until formal consultation had taken place on additional revised drawings that had been received.[Osbaldwick]

Members considered a Full Application by Mr. A Sullivan for a two storey rear and single storey side extensions to a detached dwelling.

Councillor Warters requested that he be able to address the Committee to outline reasons why he called in the application for consideration, the Chair accepted his request. He urged the Committee to defer the application due to a number of issues which included;

·        That he felt that there were numerous mistakes in the Officer’s report, which would not enable Members to make a fair decision.

·        That the property at 293 Hull Road did not have an extension, but that what had been perceived as such was part of the original building.

·        That objectors had not received copies of the revised plans that they had requested at the site visit.

In response to Councillor Warters’ concerns, the Chair reported that amended plans for the proposal had been available for members of the public to view at the Council Offices.

Officers informed the Committee that they had received an email, which had also been sent to all Members by a member of the public. In their response to the email, Officers stated that;

·        Whether the kitchen at 293 Hull Road constituted an extension or a part of the original house was not relevant as the Officer’s report was based on information that had been given by the occupier of the property, and what had been observed by the case officer on site.

·        The dimensions of the extension and distance from the boundary in the report were correct and that the proposed two storey extension was not as wide and was further away from the boundary of the property at 293 as originally reported.

·        References to 263 Hull Road in the Officer’s report were incorrect and should have referred to 293 Hull Road, and were unfortunate typographical errors.

For these reasons Officers suggested that, in their view, that there would not be justification for the Committee to defer a decision on the application again.

Officers answered a number of other queries from Members relating to cycle storage, existing car parking problems in the vicinity and confirmed that the Article 4 Direction in relation to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) would not take effect until  April, so a decision on the application would not have to comply with this.

Representations were received from a neighbour in objection. He raised a number of concerns which included;

·        Reduction of light for adjacent properties.

·        That surface water drainage had not been considered, in that the height of the garden at 295 was greater than the neighbour’s property which would lead to higher levels of water run off.

·        That the loss of kerbside parking would exacerbate current car parking problems and would lead to cars parking in the turning point in the road, which would block access to neighbouring properties.

Members asked Officers for clarification on whether the applicant could build some or all of the extensions under permitted development. It was reported that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45a

This is a full application for the erection of a single storey replacement dwelling. This application was originally considered by the Committee at their meeting in October 2011, where it was decided that the application be deferred until the submission of a report on the effect that the proposed dwelling could have on an adjacent ash tree and also to allow for further consideration on how natural light could reach two of the rooms in the proposed basement. [Wheldrake] 

Members considered a Full Application by Mr. S Crowther for the erection of a replacement single storey dwelling (resubmission).

Officers explained that the application had originally been deferred in October 2011 in order for consideration to be given to providing greater separation between the dwelling and an adjacent ash tree, and also to how natural light would reach rooms within the basement. It was noted that a revised location plan had been received and that the distance between the proposed dwelling and the tree was now deemed to be acceptable. It was also reported that, if the application was approved, the lightwells serving the basement would incorporate toughened glass, which would avoid the need for protective enclosures thus allowing more natural light to enter the basement.

Officers informed Members that the proposed replacement dwelling would constitute a significant enlargement of the existing building. They confirmed that the floorspace in the basement had also been reduced from the previous application, but that the ground level space had remained at its previous size.

Representations in support of the application were received from the applicant. She circulated a photograph of the proposed dwelling; this was subsequently attached to the agenda, which was republished after the meeting. She informed the Committee that the proposed bungalow would now be at a distance of 6.6 metres away from the ash tree. The walls of the light wells would be painted with light reflecting paint, and the safety railings would be replaced with a glass balustrade. The applicant also informed the Committee that support for her application had been received from the Parish Council and local residents.

Members felt that as the majority of the proposed dwelling would be unobtrusive and as local residents were not opposed to the application, that it should be approved. Some Members also suggested that a condition should be added to maintain the size of the boundary landscape and that permitted development rights should be removed, in order for future development to be tightly controlled.

RESOLVED:       That the application be approved with the following conditions;

1.   The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To ensure compliance with Sections 91 to 93 and Section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by section 51 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:-

Drawing Nos:-CRO/12.A; CRA/03A ; CRA/09A received on 4 November 2011.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority.

3.   Notwithstanding any proposed materials specified on the approved drawings or in the application form submitted with the application, samples of the external materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.

Reason:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45b

This is a major reserved matters application for the erection of a fire station with training tower and associated facilities. [Fishergate]

Members considered a Reserved Matters Application by the North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service for the erection of a fire station with a training tower and associated facilities. The reserved matters were the detailed appearance of the main building, the training tower and the landscaping and layout of the development.

In their update to Members, Officers informed the Committee about comments that had been received from the Council’s Landscape Architect. It was reported that the tree on site, by the proposed car park entrance, would be retained and protected during construction works. Protection measures included retention of the existing kerb line and the relocation of a proposed lighting column. It was also clarified that there would be a separate entrance for fire tenders and that the Council’s Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) was satisfied by the amount of light emittance from the proposed lights on the site.

Representations in support were received from the agent for the applicant. She spoke about the process that had contributed to the submission of the application, in particular that the Council’s Landscape Architect and Archaeologist and the local Planning Panel had been consulted. She stated that the lighting on the training tower would be switched off during the day and that the applicant was happy to move the kerb away from tree roots.

Members suggested amendments to the condition regarding external lighting, which would require lighting to be on a movement sensor, in the interests of amenity and to avoid undue light pollution. Officers and the applicants confirmed that this was acceptable.

RESOLVED:       That the application be approved with the following amended condition;

                             4. External lighting within the site shall not exceed 5 Lux, measured at the site boundary. Lighting shall not exceed 1 Lux at the nearest residential facade between 23:00 and 07:00 the following day. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, all external lighting shall be activated by motion sensors, so that it is only illuminated when required for operational reasons.

Reason: In interests of the amenity of surrounding occupants.

REASON:           In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report and the amended condition above, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance with particular reference to visual amenity, residential amenity and highway safety. As such the proposal complies with Policies GP1, GP9 and NE1 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.

This is a full application for the erection of a two storey live/work annex.

The application has been called in before committee by Cllr Doughty as he considered the application to be sensitive by virtue of the health condition of the occupant of the building.  [Strensall] [Site Visit]

Members considered a Full Application by Mr and Mrs R Binns for the erection of a two storey live/work annex. (retrospective) (resubmission).

Representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent. He informed the Committee that the main reason for the construction of the annex was in order to provide support for the applicant’s son who had mental health problems. As a result of this, he felt that very special circumstances existed for Members to approve the application, even though it was located in the Green Belt. He also felt that the proposed demolition of the piggery would improve the openness of the site.

Additional representations of support were received from the Ward Member, Councillor Doughty, and these comments were circulated to Members at the meeting.

Some Members asked the applicant about what would happen to the annex if at any point their son did not inhabit the annex. In addition they asked whether the building would be demolished if the family no longer lived at the property.

The applicant responded that their son would not move out of the annex without the rest of the family moving away.

Officers suggested that it may be the application was approved that it would be beneficial to have a section 106 agreement in place in order to tie the main dwelling to the occupation of the annex. However, it was pointed out to Members that the accommodation under consideration was fully self contained and not physically linked to the house, and therefore could not be properly described as an annex.

During their debate, Members raised a number of issues including; that it was unfortunate that initial consultation with Planning Officers had not taken place before construction began, that they felt that the application was only a minor incursion into land that was located in the Draft Green Belt, that it would be possible to screen the development from the surrounding Green Belt and that approval of the application could set a precedent for other similar applications in the future.

RESOLVED:       That the application be refused.

REASON:           The proposed dwelling is considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The circumstances provided for the justification for the proposed dwelling are not considered to represent very special circumstances and as such do not overcome the presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its siting and urban appearance is also considered to be out of keeping with the prevailing character and pattern of development in the area and leads to an encroachment of development and as such impacts adversely on the openness of the Green Belt. For these reasons the proposed dwelling is to be considered inappropriate development and is therefore contrary to Policies GB1 and GP2 of the City of York Council Development Control Local Plan (2005); Policy CS1 of the emerging CYC Core Strategy; Policy YH9 and Y1 of the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008); and national planning advice  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45d

This is an application for the demolition of a detached two storey dwellinghouse with associated outbuildings. The site lies within the Fulford Conservation Area.

This application has been called in by Councillor Aspden on behalf of local residents who have commented on the heritage aspects of the building to be demolished such as; the house’s design by a local architect in the 1950s, its rural character and landscaped setting.[Fulford] [Site Visit]

Members considered a Conservation Area Consent Application by Mr Waldron for the demolition of house and outbuildings.

In their update to Members, Officers explained that the application was submitted with an application for the erection of a replacement dwelling on the site. The Local Member requested that if it was the intention of Officers to approve the applications, that they be referred to Planning Committee for determination. However, the application for the replacement dwelling was not brought to Committee as it was refused by Officers under delegated powers. Following comments from members of the public about the lack of online access to consultation documents relating to the application following the site visit, it was confirmed that a computer fault had occurred between 12^th and 21^st December, after which public access was restored.

Members asked Officers whether a condition could be added to any approval to request that the bricks from the demolished building be stored for re-use. Officers responded that they could only ask the applicant to remove the bricks from the site. Some Members then commented that the removal of bricks by vehicles could compromise the condition of the trees on the site, which could be damaged by multiple vehicles entering and leaving the site.

Representations were received from a representative of Fulford Parish Council. She stated that although the Parish Council accepted that there would not be a detrimental impact to the site through the demolition of the building, they would wish to see the site properly restored and landscaped. However, she felt that it would be unwise to support demolition, given that the applicant had provided no detailed information regarding the future use or redevelopment of the site.  In addition, she felt that there was a need for a new bat survey to take place. She also added that the Parish Council felt that an archaeological watching brief should be added to any permission.

Some Members felt that the application should be refused for a number of reasons such as; the removal of housing stock from the city, the lack of information on the long term implications of development or non-development on the site and the adverse impact that this could have on the Conservation Area.

RESOLVED:       That the application be refused.

REASON:           In the absence of any detailed information regarding the future use or redevelopment of the site, the Local Planning Authority considers that the demolition of the buildings would be likely to have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. The application therefore conflicts with national planning advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 5 (Planning for the Historic Environment) and policies HE2 (Development in Historic Locations), HE3 (Conservation Areas) and HE5 (Demolition of Listed Buildings and Buildings in Conservation Areas) of the City of York Local Plan Deposit Draft.