Agenda and minutes

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

No interests were declared.

To consider excluding the public and press from the meeting during consideration of annexes to agenda item 7 on the grounds that they contain information which is classified as exempt under Paragraph 6 of Schedule 12A to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006.

RESOLVED:       That the Members of the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of Annex A to agenda item 7 (Enforcement Cases Update) on the grounds that it contains information that if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the Authority proposes to give, under any enactment or notice by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person or that the Authority proposes to make an order or directive under any enactment. This information is classed as exempt under Paragraphs 6 of Schedule 12A to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 8 March 2012.

RESOLVED:       That the minutes of the East Area Sub-Committee held on 8 March 2012 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 Wednesday 11 April 2012 at 5.00pm.

It was reported 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.

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 full major application is for the erection of 32 dwellings, 1no retail unit and 1no veterinary surgery following the demolition of existing buildings. [Heworth] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full major application by Andy Cramer and Jeremy Binnian for the erection of 32 dwellings, 1 no. retail unit and 1 no. veterinary surgery following demolition of existing buildings.

In their update to Members, Officers reported that a revised layout from the applicants had moved the garage of plot 19 away from the T-junction. They also reported that a number of comments had been received from the Council’s Highways Network Management Unit which related to unresolved concerns they had with the application. They felt as a result of these concerns that Members should defer a decision on the application. These concerns included;

·        That there was no pedestrian access to the retail unit from within the residential site.

·        That the car parking arrangements associated with Plot 18 was too close to the Ambulance Station entrance.

·        That the four visitor parking bays adjacent to the ambulance station should be removed due to their siting on the bellmouth of a junction and the loss of footway access because of this.

·        That the veterinary unit bin store was sandwiched between the veterinary unit and the car parking bays which would lead to difficulties for waste collections.

·        That swept paths should have been provided to demonstrate how refuse vehicles could manoeuvre throughout the residential area.

It was reported that an additional objection had been raised on behalf of the ambulance station which related to conflict between ambulances and vehicles due to parking and traffic calming measures on the main access road. They also felt that there would be a loss of visibility as a result of the proposed parking spaces next to the ambulance station access.

Officers also informed Members that a recent bat survey had been conducted on the site and that if Members were minded to approve the application that a condition could be added related to bats. It was also noted that the proposed opening hours of the retail unit would be between the hours of 7 am until 10 pm on Monday to Saturday and from 10 am until 4 pm on Sunday.

Members felt that due to numerous concerns from the Council’s Highways Network Control Unit, particularly those about safe access and egress to the site that the application should be deferred to be considered at a later date. They also wished to know what would happen to the existing Public Right of Way which was adjacent to the site and if any action would be taken to mitigate the loss of the poplar trees to the south west of the site.

RESOLVED:       That the application be deferred.

REASON:           In order for Members to receive clarification on the ownership of the land to the north-east of the site, highway issues, landscaping and drainage.

This full application is for the erection of a two storey dwellinghouse. [Strensall] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr and Mrs B Robson for the erection of a two storey dwellinghouse.

In their update to Members, Officers clarified that the existing trees  on the eastern boundary would be replaced with a fence, and a laurel hedge would be planted inside the fence.

Representations in objection were received from a local resident. She stated that adding an additional house in the former grounds of Stockton Grange, which was a listed building, would ruin its setting. Additionally, she felt that the proposed access lane would not be sufficient to serve three properties.

Representations in support were received from the applicant’s agent, who attended with a colleague who answered Members’ questions regarding the conservation issues surrounding the application.

Questions from Members to the applicant related to the removal of trees on the site and the effect the building would have on the setting of the property and associated neighbouring buildings. It was reported that the trees were not considered to be worthy of protection and could be removed following a six weeks notice period due to being in a Conservation Area.

The applicant  stated that the proposed dwelling  would not be as tall as the neighbouring properties of Stockton Grange and the Laurels, and considered that  views of the site from Stockton Grange would not adversely affect its  visual amenity or setting.

Some Members felt that the application should be refused on size, scale, massing and the detrimental effect on the setting of the listed building. Other Members felt that it would be more appropriate to defer the application in order for the design of the building to be amended to better suit the setting. However, some Members felt that by agreeing to a deferral, this would imply that development could take place on the site at a later date.

RESOLVED:       That the application be refused.

REASON:     (i)   The siting, design, scale and mass of the proposed dwelling, together with the cumulative change to the setting of the Grade II listed Stockton Grange and the loss of open character, would cause substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset for this and future generations. There is considered to be no substantial public benefit from the development that would outweigh the degree of harm to the setting of Stockton Grange. The proposal therefore is contrary to the Government’s aims as set out in paragraphs 129 to 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework and City of York Draft Local Plan Policy HE2.

                    (ii)     Insufficient drainage details have been submitted to show how surface water generated by the proposal would be properly attenuated. The application therefore conflicts with Policy GP15a of the City of York Development Control Local Plan and Policy CS22 of the emerging City of York Core Strategy; the Council’s adopted Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.                  

This full application is for the variation of condition 3 of approved application 03/02728/FUL (extension to sales building) to allow 24 hours use.

The application is brought to Committee at the request of Cllr. Warters because the proposal is to remove a condition that had previously been deemed necessary. [Osbaldwick] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Inner Space Stations for a variation of condition 3 of approved application 03/02728/FUL (extension to sales building) to allow 24 hours use.

Representations in objection were received from a representative of Murton Parish Council. She raised concerns about the impact of the longer hours on local residents in terms of noise and disturbance. She also stated that a previous application for a 24 hour alcohol licence had been breached by applying the terms to the whole sales area.

Representations in support were received from the applicant. He informed Members that the longer opening hours would improve the security of the area. It would also enable the premises to  compete with other existing petrol stations which had similar opening hours.

Questions from Members related to the hours of use of the car wash on the site, and if restrictions existed relating to this. It was reported that only the shop would be able to operate for 24 hours, not the car wash.

Some Members felt the application should be approved, as it would assist in the continued viability of a local independent business and would make little difference to existing noise levels.

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 impact on local noise levels. As such the proposal complies with Policies GP1 and S10 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.

This full application is for the removal of conditions 5 (code for sustainable homes) and 6 (10% on-site renewable energy) of approved application 11/00676/FUL for the erection of 8no. two storey dwellinghouses following the demolition of a large bungalow on Brecks Lane.

The application has been called in for a Committee decision at the request of Cllr Doughty, as the original application for the housing development was determined by the Committee. [Strensall]

Members considered a full application by Mr D Gath for the removal of conditions 5 (code for sustainable homes) and 6 (on-site renewable energy) of approved application 11/00676/FUL for the erection of 8 no.  two storey dwellinghouses.

In their update Officers informed Members of a number of a policy changes in the Council’s Core Strategy, which had now been submitted  to the Secretary of State.

It was reported that there was no longer a requirement to achieve  Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes  or 10% renewable energy on developments of less than 10 dwellings. As the application was for 8 dwellings, it was  recommended that conditions 5 and 6 from a previous approved planning application should be removed. Although the previous application was approved by the Committee in September 2011, Officers  advised Members that a decision on the current application should be based on current policies.

Officers confirmed that the development  would still need to comply with Building Regulations in relation  to carbon reduction, insulation and energy efficiency, which were the same as Level 3 of the Code and would still need to be achieved. Other aspects of the code would either not change (e.g. proximity to bus stops)  or would form part of the approved plans (e.g. cycle storage, garden sizes, drying areas).

Officers stated that the main implication of removal of condition 5 from the application would be that it would remove the requirement for the applicant to obtain a Certificate from an independent assessor confirming that Level 3 of the Code had been achieved.

In relation to Condition 6, which sought a 10% requirement for on-site renewable energy provision for all developments, it was reported that this was in conflict with another policy from the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy which set a threshold for this requirement of 10 or more dwellings.

Representations were received from a representative of Strensall Parish Council. He felt that the application should be refused as the Planning Inspector had recently  voiced concerns about the policy on sustainable homes contained within the Core Strategy, and because it had not been assessed as to whether it was viable or not. He expressed concerns that if approved, a precedent would be set for other developments of less than 10 dwellings which had not yet commenced .

Representations were received from the applicant who stated that  the requirements of the condition were unduly onerous,  were hindering development in the city and were an unnecessary level of bureaucracy. In relation to renewable energy, he stated that a range of other measures undertaken at the construction stage could be equally effective and would have a far longer life than, for example, solar panels. 

Representations were received via email prior to the meeting from the Ward Member, Councillor Doughty. He stated that he agreed with the representations made by Strensall Parish Council regarding  the Code for Sustainable Homes and 10% renewable energy, as these were the requirements at the time of approval, and were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54d

This full application is for the erection of a two storey dwelling (with rooms in the roof) following demolition of the existing chapel.

The application has been called in by Cllr Doughty due to concern by some residents of the village that the proposal would be overdevelopment.[Strensall] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr Martyn Inwood for the erection of a two storey dwelling (with rooms in roof) following the demolition of an existing chapel.

In their update to Members, Officers told the Committee that the pruning of the adjacent willow tree to the chapel had been approved by the Council. In relation to a question from a Member about drainage on the site Officers stated that the proposals had not demonstrated that soakaways would be an effective method of drainage on this site.

Representations were received from the applicant. He stated that   the proposed property would take up 39% of the application site and that it would be used for a family home. He confirmed that he wanted to retain the willow tree and that drainage would  be achieved through rainwater harvesting rather than soakaways.

Representations were received via email from the Ward Member, Councillor Doughty. He  re-iterated concerns that the application could represent overdevelopment in the Conservation Area that had been raised by  residents at a recent Stockton on the Forest Parish Council meeting.

Questions from Members related to the existing willow tree. Officers confirmed that the construction would encroach within the root protection area. They also added that if Members were minded to approve the application, a condition requiring a management plan to safeguard the tree could be inserted into the planning permission. However, in their view, irrespective of such a condition, the development would harm the roots.

Some Members were satisfied that the tree would survive but that the applicant should plant a replacement as a goodwill gesture to the village. The applicant confirmed that he would be happy to do this. Others felt that the application should be approved as a single property on the site was in keeping with the surrounding area.

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 only in accordance with the approved plans numbered:  I/27-P1-101, I/27-P1-102, I/27-P1-103, I/27-P1-104, I/27-P1-105 and I/27-P1-106.

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:     So as to achieve a visually cohesive appearance.

4.   Notwithstanding the information contained on the approved plans, the height of the approved development shall not exceed 5.5 metres to the eaves and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54e

This full application is for a two storey rear and single storey front and rear extensions.

This application has been brought before the Committee by Councillor Doughty on issues of overdevelopment. [Strensall] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr Chowdhury for a two storey rear and single storey front and rear extensions.

In their update to Members, Officers reported that an additional letter had been received from the applicant stating their reasons for resubmission. The application was resubmitted to address previous concerns raised by the local residents on the previously withdrawn application. She stated that the accommodation was required for her disabled mother, and included a  ground floor gym room to enable the applicant’s mother to receive physiotherapy. Officers felt that the extended property would not appear incongruous due to its location at the end of a cul-de-sac.

Representations in objection were received from a local resident. She pointed out that the site plan was inaccurate as it did not show extensions that had been built on neighbouring properties at number 9 and 11. She also felt that by doubling the size of the bedrooms and halving the existing garden space that the local residents amenity would be detrimentally affected.

Representations in support were received from the applicant. She outlined how the application had been amended from the previous submission, in that there were no additional windows proposed for the first floor and that a fence would be constructed along the rear boundary. She also outlined the reason for the application in that it could allow her mother, who had 24 hour care needs, to live with her family.

Some Members asked questions about the distance from the extensions of the property to the neighbouring dwellings at numbers 9 and 11. The Committee were informed that the separation from the extensions to the boundary of the properties was deemed to be acceptable to Officers.

During discussion, some Members considered that the application should be approved as they felt that the applicant had given valid reasons for the development. They also considered that it would not adversely affect the visual amenity of neighbouring properties. Other Members expressed the view that the application would be overdevelopment in the area, but asked that if approved, a condition for the boundary edge to be reinstated be added to planning permission.

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

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 from 1^st January to 28^th March 2012, and provides a summary of the salient points from appeals determined in that period. A list of outstanding appeals to that date is also included.

Members received a report which informed them of the Council’s performance in relation to appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate from 1^st January to 28^th March 2012 and provided a summary of the salient points from appeals determined in that period.

RESOLVED:       That the content of the report be noted.

REASON:           So that Members can be kept informed on appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate.

The purpose of this report is to provide Members with a continuing quarterly update on the number of enforcement cases currently outstanding for the area covered by this Sub-Committee. 

Members considered a report which provided them with a continuing quarterly update on the number of enforcement cases currently outstanding for the area covered by the Sub-Committee.

RESOLVED:       That the reports be noted.

REASON:           To update Members on the number of outstanding enforcement cases within the Sub Committee’s area.