Agenda and minutes

At this point in the meeting, Members are asked to declare:

·        any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests

·        any prejudicial interests or

·        any disclosable pecuniary interests

which they may have in respect of business on this agenda.

Members were invited to declare, at this point in the meeting, any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests, any prejudicial interests or any disclosable pecuniary interests that they might have in the business on the agenda.

Cllr Crawshaw declared a personal, prejudicial interest in applications [19/00837/LBC & [19/00836/FULM], Agenda item 3c and 3d, Club Salvation George Hudson Street in that having raised objections to the conversion of music venues in the City for any other use, due to it representing a loss of cultural value and having specifically named Club Salvation as an example of this, he had predetermined his position on this matter and stated that he would leave the meeting for the item.

Cllr Waudby declared a personal, non-pecuniary interest in item 3a on the Agenda [18/01934/FULM] Block H Joseph Terry Grove, as a family member had attended the site visit.  Councillor Waudby declared that this would not affect her consideration of this application.

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 Officers on the contact details listed at the foot of this agenda. The deadline for registering is at 5.00 pm.

Filming, Recording or Webcasting Meetings

Please note that, subject to available resources, this meeting will be filmed and webcast, or recorded, including any registered public speakers who have given their permission.  The broadcast can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/webcasts  or, if sound recorded, this will be uploaded onto the Council’s website following the meeting.

Residents are welcome to photograph, film or record Councillors and Officers at all meetings open to the press and public. This includes the use of social media reporting, i.e. tweeting.  Anyone wishing to film, record or take photos at any public meeting should contact the Democracy Officer (whose contact details are at the foot of this agenda) in advance of the meeting.

The Council’s protocol on Webcasting, Filming & Recording of Meetings ensures that these practices are carried out in a manner both respectful to the conduct of the meeting and all those present.  It can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11406/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_of_council_meetings_20160809.pdf

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.

To determine the following planning applications:

Members considered a schedule of reports of the Assistant Director, Planning and Public Protection, relating to the following planning applications, outlining the proposals and relevant policy considerations and setting out the views of consultees and officers.

Erection of four storey block of 34 apartments with associated parking and landscaping (revised design of Block K, previously named Block H) [Micklegate] [site visit]

Members considered a full application from David Wilson Homes

for the Erection of four storey block of 34 apartments with associated parking and landscaping (revised design of Block K, previously named Block H). 

The Development Manager updated the Committee on this application which had been deferred from the August 2019 Committee meeting.  Since August, further comments had been received from Sports and Active Leisure and Education.  The Education and Sports s106 contribution had had been agreed. It was reported that this would be pro-rata. 

The Development Manager circulated a further additional condition in relation to providing details of the reduction in carbon emissions this development would achieve through efficient building fabric and/or low carbon technology.  A Member requested that the condition state the extent that the applicant would be expected to reduce carbon emissions.  The Local Plan had stated 28% carbon reduction.

Mr Eammon Keogh, Agent for the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.  He stated that this application was on improvement on the previously agreed scheme as it represented a smaller footprint.  In response to questions from Members regarding parking allocation, he explained that there were 35 parking spaces, one for each apartment plus a further parking space for one visitor.

In response to Members concerns regarding take up of the provision of 5 social rented apartments in this scheme,  and whether or not these were occupied, Mr Keogh confirmed that these had been offered to the Housing Association, although he did not have any information regarding take up.  Members considered that there had not been take up due to excessive prohibitive service charges.  In response to further questions regarding what would happen if there were no take up from the Housing Association, Mr Keogh explained that a commuted sum would be payable to the Council.  Some Members considered the cost to be paid to the Council should be the market value of the property rather than the building cost which would be significantly less than the market value.

Mr Terry Wilson, Chair of the Chocolate Works Residents Association spoke against the application.  Mr Wilson raised a number of concerns including the following:

That the development:

(i)           Was becoming unbalanced due to subsequent planning applications.  Of the 365 total properties 56% of them were one or two bedroom(s) and 70% of these would be apartments.  He considered that these properties were inflexible.

(ii)         Impacted upon the heritage at the Terry’s site; these concerns had been raised by: the Chocolate Works Residents Association, the York Civic Trust as well as a local residents.

(iii)        Was the width of a football pitch, too large.

(iv)        Impacted on the out of date transport assessment undertaken in 2009 which was based on a lot less residents living in the area.

Ms Janet Ray, a local resident, spoke against the application and expressed similar concerns to Mr Terry Wilson (above), that the proposed buildings were too large for the site and were out of keeping with the heritage area, devaluing the original  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Erection of replacement dwelling (resubmission). [Micklegate]

[site visit]

Councillor Orrell left the meeting before the presentation and discussion of this item.

Members considered a full application from The Handa Family

for the erection of a replacement dwelling (resubmission).

Officers updated the Committee on the application and reported 3 further responses from local residents which had been received but not previously reported to Members (these can be found attached to the Agenda item 3b). 

Officers reported that at the site visit they had been asked to comment about the need to close the footpath(s) parallel to the front boundary of the property and / or footpath on Tadcaster Road /The Mount immediately to the East of the property during construction works and whether consideration had been given to the requirements of the Equalities Act in terms of maintaining appropriate access on the public highway.  A full response to this question can be found attached to the Agenda item 3b). 

Mr Matthew Margetts, Agent for the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.  He explained that he had been working with the Council’s Planning Team for two years to come up with a family home with a good design that was respectful to the neighbours.  In response to questions regarding the environmental impact of the new build,  Mr  Margetts explained that the new build would have a high standard energy efficient heating system. 

A Member expressed concerns that the build had been used as staff quarters for the hotel for 20 years and that this build could possibly serve as an annex to the Elmbank Hotel.

Mrs Angela Wheatcroft, local resident, spoke against the application.  She considered that it would be an expensive waste of money if this application were granted as little would be achieved, only one extra bedroom.  Drilling below ground level along with all of the work involved would be an overdevelopment of this site which is sensitive.  She was concerned that the 1930’s materials set in the context of existing house would be wasted.  She raised further concern regarding the courtyard, which is north facing, therefore much of the court yard would be dark with lots of moisture and moss there. 

Dr Jens Wiebe, a local resident next door to the premises spoke against the application.  Dr Wiebe expressed concern that his family’s privacy would be compromised if this application were granted.  He had written to the relevant architects regarding overlooking and they had suggested that the windows would be removed completely which is not the case in this proposal.  Dr Wiebe explained that they already experience overlooking from the Hotel.  He expressed further concern about the brick boundary wall which currently gives them some degree of privacy.  The application had stated that this would be knocked down.  It is a shared boundary wall and he had not been consulted.  He was concerned that this could damage his garden.  

Mrs Patricia Pitt, a local resident for the last 30 years, spoke against the application.  She considered that the new proposal would be more unsightly, offered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Internal alterations to Nos 27-31 George Hudson Street involving the removal of existing partitions and the installation of new partitions and doorways to facilitate conversion of the properties to serviced apartments. [Micklegate] [site visit]

There was a 5 minute recess.

Cllr Crawshaw left the meeting having declared a personal prejudicial interest noted at Minute 22.

Members considered an application from Mr Brown for Internal alterations to Nos 27-31 George Hudson Street involving the removal of existing partitions and the installation of new partitions and doorways to facilitate conversion of the properties to serviced apartments.

Officers updated the Committee on the application and reported further consultation responses which had been received but not previously reported to Members (attached at end of these Minutes). 

Mr Lee Vincent, Agent for the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved and it was therefore:

Resolved: That the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions listed in the report.

Reason:     (i)      The proposals would result in conversion of

the first, second and third floors and a roof level extension to create 17.no serviced apartments (C1 Use), the change of use of No.23 and 25 Tanner Row at ground floor and basement levels to form a restaurant (Class A3) with ancillary accommodation along with the change of use ground floor and basement to 31 George Hudson Street to form amenity space for the serviced apartments.

(ii)      The proposed works to the Listed Buildings are, within the context of the development as whole; which included non listed buildings, relatively minor in their nature. The works consist of new partitioning of the internal space and the closing up of a non historic opening. Overall it is considered that these works do not give rise to significant levels of harm being caused to the overall character, setting and amenity of the Listed Building. It is therefore recommended that Listed Building Consent be granted.  

Conversion of first, second floor and third floors and roof level extension to create 17no. serviced apartments (C1 use), change of use of 23 and 25 Tanner Row ground floor and basement to restaurant (class A3) with ancillary accommodation along with ground floor and basement to 31 George Hudson Street to amenity space for serviced apartments above (c1 use) (revised scheme) [Micklegate] [site visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr Brown for a conversion of first, second floor and third floors and roof level extension to create 17 serviced apartments (C1 use), change of use of 23 and 25 Tanner Row ground floor and basement to restaurant (class A3) with ancillary accommodation along with ground floor and basement to 31 George Hudson Street to amenity space for serviced apartments above (c1 use) (revised scheme).

Officers updated the Committee on the application and reported further consultation responses which had been received but not previously reported to Members (attached at end of these Minutes). 

Mr Lee Vincent, Agent for the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

A few Member expressed concern at the loss of another music venue in the City and requested that there is a policy on this in future.

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved and it was therefore:

Resolved: That the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions listed in the report.

Reason:     (i)      The proposals would result in conversion of

the first, second and third floors and a roof level extension to create 17.no serviced apartments (C1 Use), the change of use of No.23 and 25 Tanner Row at ground floor and basement levels to form a restaurant (Class A3) with ancillary accommodation along with the change of use ground floor and basement to 31 George Hudson Street to form amenity space for the serviced apartments.

(ii)      The proposed works to the Listed Buildings are, within the context of the development as whole; which included non-listed buildings, relatively minor in their nature. The works consist of new partitioning of the internal space and the closing up of a non-historic opening. Overall it is considered that these works do not give rise to significant levels of harm being caused to the overall character, setting and amenity of the Listed Building. It is therefore recommended that Listed Building Consent be granted.  

The purpose of this report is to provide Members with a continuing quarterly update on planning enforcement cases. 

Resolved: That this item be deferred to the next

 Committee meeting.

Reason: Due to it being very late in the evening and in

order to allow adequate time to consider this

item.