Agenda and minutes

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

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

Councillor Cuthbertson declared a personal non prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 5c) (Physics Department) as a registered student at the University of York. He clarified this by saying that he did not study sciences.

Councillor McIlveen declared two personal non prejudicial interests. Firstly he declared a personal and non prejudicial interest  in Agenda Item 5a) (19 Farndale Avenue) as he managed an House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) in another area of the city. He also declared another personal non prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 5b) (Leonard Cheshire Disability) as he had part dealings with the York Archaeological Trust (YAT) and also because the Chair of his local Labour Party branch was an employee of YAT.

No other interests were declared.

To consider excluding the public and press from the meeting during consideration of the annexes of agenda item 6 on the grounds that that they contain information which is classified as exempt under Paragraphs 1, 2 and 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 Annexes to agenda item 6 (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 6 September 2012.

RESOLVED:       That the minutes of the East Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 6 September 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 requestedto contact the Democracy Officer on the contact details listed at the foot of this agenda. The deadline for registering is Tuesday 9 October 2012 at 5.00 pm.

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 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 of consultees and officers.

This application seeks planning permission to convert a three-bedroom single occupancy dwelling house (Use Class C3) into a four-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Use Class C4). 

The application has been brought to Committee at the request of the local Member because of concerns in respect to the impact of HMO's. [Osbaldwick] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application for a change of use from dwelling (use Class C3) to a house of multiple occupation (HMO) (use Class C4).

In their update to Members Officers commented that the figures used in the report to refer to one existing HMO within 100 metres of the property at 19 Farndale Avenue were incorrect. They also revealed that twelve properties had been left off the list, which led to a recalculation in the percentage of properties in the area which were HMOs. The overall number was still below the threshold in the Council`s approved Supplementary Planning Document.

Representations in objection to the application were received from a local resident who was also a member of Osbaldwick Parish Council. He questioned the numbers used in the Officer’s report to calculate the percentage of HMOs which were 100 metres distance away from the application site, in particular the reliance on Council Tax data. He felt that a more vigorous inspection needed to take place to discover which houses were HMOs, and which were not.

Discussion between Members and Officers focused on whether the figures of the number of HMOs that had been included in the Officer’s report were robust enough to justify granting approval for the application. Some Members suggested that the application be deferred in order to give Officers more time to carry out a proper survey of houses in the area.

Officers informed the Committee that due to changes in legislation, that if an unauthorised HMO had been a shared property before April 2012, the owners could apply for a Certificate of Lawful Development , which may take several months to resolve.  

They suggested that as a result of this, the list of retrospective applications from unauthorised HMOs could increase and could be detrimental to the application under consideration.

Further discussion ensued with some Members feeling that the figures for the number of HMOs in the area were not clear enough in order to be able to grant planning permission, because they felt that current local knowledge from the Parish Council and local residents would be more accurate.

Others considered that if the Committee decided to defer the application, that they would set a precedent for stalling with future similar applications because of opinions over the accuracy of figures of HMOs in the area. Additionally, some Members felt that the system of verification of houses as HMOs was an improvement on the previous system and that the Committee should concur with the Officer’s recommendation for approval. They added that the Committee should follow the Council’s policy and that this should be applied consistently.

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 residential amenity and the impact on the character and appearance of the area. As such the proposal complies with Policy H8 of the City of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28a

This application seeks planning permission for Change of use from General Industrial (Use Class B2) to Storage (Use Class B8) with General Industrial Use at the above site. [Huntington/New Earswick]

Members considered a full major application for a change of use from General Industrial (Use Class B2) to Storage (Use B8) with General Industrial Use.

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 principle of change of use and the impact on local residential amenity. As such the proposal complies with Policy E3b of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.

This application seeks planning permission for the construction of a two storey Wolfson Atmospheric Chemistry Research Centre at Chemistry Car Park A and new and replacement ramps to the rear of the Plasma and Harold Fairhair buildings.

The application has been called in by Councillor Levene because of a number of concerns including encroachment on the Conservation Area, impact on a public right of way (the footpath from the Church), and lack of information on environmental impact (noise, etc) and a wish for residents to be able to publicly voice similar concerns. [Heslington] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application for the construction of a two storey Wolfson Atmospheric Chemistry Research Centre at Chemistry Car Park A on the University of York campus, and also for new replacement ramps to the rear of the Plasma and Harold Fairhair buildings.

In their update to Members, Officers suggested that if Members were minded to approve the application that a condition be added to restrict the hours of construction on the building.

Representations in objection were received from a local resident. She stated that the conservation area around the site would be harmed, as in her opinion the pathway through the adjacent woodland would be detrimentally affected due to the distance proximity of the new buildings to the boundary of the trees.

Further representations were received from another local resident in objection. She felt that the application would be overdevelopment and that the proposed building was too large and had been shoehorned into the land available in the car park. Additionally she was concerned that there was a lack of information about tree protection and added that if approved, an archaeological condition should be added to planning permission.

Additional representations in objection were received from another local resident. He referred to Heslington Church, which was adjacent to the site. He added that given its listed status that special care and attention should be paid to how developments in the area could affect the church. In his view construction of the building would damage tree roots, which would lead to their death, and therefore the building would be conspicuous in the winter.

Representations in support of the application were received from the agent for the applicant. She mentioned to Members that the applicant had proposed to thicken the tree belt on the boundary of the site. She added that the reason for the location of the building was to be closer to other Chemistry Department buildings. She stated that the University had a development brief on that part of the campus and that the application would support the Council’s policy of the promotion of Science in the city and would bring in additional jobs.

Members asked Officers about whether a tree survey had been conducted. In the view of Officers it was felt that the previous temporary buildings on the site would have restricted the spread of tree roots into the application site. Other Members added that they could not see how tree roots could have been damaged by a temporary building placed upon a tarmac surface. The agent responded that when the temporary buildings were located on the site that no excavations took place, but that that the weight of the buildings would have restricted the spread of tree roots. This was as a result of compaction of the ground.

Other questions to Officers from Members sought clarification about the height of the proposed building and whether the footpath along the boundary of the site would be maintained. They also questioned why Tree Protection Order (TPO) measures had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28c

This application is for the removal of condition 12 (Level 3 Code for Sustainable Homes) and 13 (provision of on-site renewable energy) of approved application 09/01202/FUL for the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings.

The application has been called-in to Committee by the Ward Councillor, Councillor Taylor for the following reasons;

·        the conditions were perfectly reasonable conditions when they were imposed and remain so;

·        the developer should develop the site as approved or sell to another developer;

·        the property, empty and secured by a huge metal fence, is an abomination in the streetscape.

[Fishergate]

Members considered a full application which sought to remove two planning conditions (condition 12 (Level 3 Code for Sustainable Homes) and condition 13 (provision for on-site renewable energy) that were attached to a previously approved application for the erection of two dwellings on the site.

Officers updated Members on the reasons for the removal of the conditions, which was due to an amendment to the Interim Planning Statement (IPS) on Sustainable Design and Construction. It was reported that the applicant would still have to comply with Code Level 3 under Building Regulations, and as a result the green credentials of the development would not be lost by removing the condition from planning permission.

Representations in support were received from the applicant. He informed the Committee regarding the reasons for the new application on the site, in that the previously attached conditions would no longer be enforceable, due to a change in policy which had introduced a threshold of ten dwellings.

Further representations were received from the Ward Member, Councillor Taylor. He informed Members that a number of local residents were displeased about the application and were not happy with the demolition of the bungalow and redevelopment. He added that they were particularly concerned that unsightly steel hoardings had been constructed around the site, and that construction on the two semi detached dwellings had not commenced. He added that he wished for the applicant to make  a commitment to local residents to finish the development in a reasonable amount of time.

RESOLVED:       That the application be approved.

REASON:           In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal, subject to the conditions listed above, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to principle of redevelopment, design, density, sustainability, character and amenity, residential amenity, flood risk and drainage, highway safety and impact on local facilities. As such the proposal complies with national advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy ENV1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and The Humber and Policies SP6, H4A, H5A, GP1, GP4A, GP10, L1C and T4 of the City of York Draft Development Control Local Plan (incorporating 4th set of changes, April 2005).

This retrospective application seeks planning permission for a single storey rear extension.

The application is being brought to committee as the applicant's son is employed by the Council. [Heworth] [Site Visit]

Members considered a retrospective full application for a single story rear extension. Members were informed that the local Planning Panel had no objections to the application.

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 effect on residential amenity.

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.

A detailed discussion between Members and Officers took place about the Article 4 direction for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and the enforcement of this.

Members thanked Officers for their continuing hard work particularly on cases involving HMOs in the city.

RESOLVED:       That the report be noted.

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