Agenda and minutes

Venue: The George Hudson Board Room - 1st Floor West Offices (F045). View directions

Contact: Louise Cook/Catherine Clarke (job-share)  Democracy Officers

Items
No. Item

Site

Visited by

Reason

DeightonLodge,Rush Farm (Game Farm) York Road, Deighton

Councillors Craghill, Crawshaw, Flinders, Galvin, Mercer and Shepherd.

As the recommendation was to approve and objections had been received.

Rowntree Wharf, Navigation Road

Councillors Craghill, Crawshaw, Flinders, Galvin, Gillies, Mercer and Shepherd.

To enable Members to view the inside of the building given its listed status.

Grove House, 40-48 Penleys Grove Street

Councillors Craghill, Crawshaw, Flinders, Galvin, Gillies, Mercer and Shepherd.

As the recommendation was to approve and objections had been received.

31 Gillygate

Councillors Craghill, Crawshaw, Flinders, Mercer and Shepherd.

As the recommendation was to approve and objections had been received

 

21.

Declarations of Interest

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.

 

Minutes:

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.

 

Councillor Mercer advised that committee that, as she had registered to speak on plans item 3g (Deighton Lodge Limited, Rush Farm (Game Farm), York Road, Deighton) as Ward Councillor, she would leave the meeting after speaking and not take part in the discussion or vote on this application.

 

Councillor Cullwick declared a personal non prejudicial interest in plans item 3a (31 Gillygate) and 3c (31 Malvern Avenue) relating to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) as he managed a small number of HMOs in the city.

 

Councillor Flinders stated that, having consulted with Officers, he did not have a prejudicial interest in items 3d and e (Rowntree Wharf, Navigation Road).

 

[Amended at Committee meeting on 7 February 2018]

22.

Public Participation

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 5.00pm on Wednesday 29 November 2017.

 

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 Officers (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

Minutes:

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.

23.

Plans List

To determine the following planning applications:

 

Minutes:

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.

 

23a

31 Gillygate, York,YO31 7EA (17/02222/FUL) pdf icon PDF 47 KB

Conversion of large House in Multiple Occupation to dwelling (use class C3) and 2no. holiday letting bedrooms within basement.  Alterations to rear elevation including extension to rear balcony [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a full application by Mrs Tina Gavin for the conversion of a large house in multiple occupation to dwelling (use class C3) and two holiday letting bedrooms within the basement as well as alterations to the rear elevation including extension to the rear balcony.

 

Ms Janet Jacob, a local resident spoke to raise concerns with regard to potential loss of privacy due to garden levels, the use of the balcony and outside seating area and possible noise disturbance. With regard to loss of privacy, officers advised that adjoining properties had outside seating areas and balconies so all three properties were in a similar situation and that the rear extension at no 29 provided an element of screening to the garden area.

 

One Member supported concerns raised that the lintel was out of keeping with adjoining properties.

 

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

 

Reason:     The proposal is considered to have a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and would not result in significant harm to residential amenity. The application complies with the policies of the draft local plan and the NPPF.

 

23b

Grove House, 40 - 48 Penleys Grove Street, York, YO31 7PN (17/01129/FULM) pdf icon PDF 217 KB

Conversion and part demolition of former care home (use class C2) to provide 32 no. apartments (use class C3) with external alterations, new raised roof and first floor rear extension. [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a major full application by Mr R Slater for the conversion and part demolition of a former care home (use class C2) to provide 32 apartments (use class C3) with external alterations, new raised roof and first floor rear extension.

 

Officers provided a update to committee members. They advised that a revised consultation response had been received from the Public Realm Officer in relation to contributions for open space. The report made reference to a requirement of £8,520 towards off site sports provision. The Public Realm Officer had now advised that the City Walls (Lord Mayors Walk), and the former St Michael’s Churchyard (Lord Mayor’s Walk/Monkgate corner), were recognised amenity areas. They had not been the subject of 5 obligations. The value of the additional contribution was £4,530 and this would be subject to a section 106 agreement in addition to those items identified in Section 6.0 of the Committee report.

 

In relation to affordable housing provision, it was considered that the development was subject to the Vacant Building Credit, (VBC). The VBC comes into play where a vacant building is brought back into any lawful use, or is demolished to be replaced by a new building. It provides a financial credit equivalent to the existing gross floor space of the existing building. On that basis the provision relates to 20% of the increase in floor space only. The applicant had advised that they had contacted a number of registered providers, none of whom had confirmed interest in taking on the unit proposed. On that basis a commuted sum was recommended.

 

With regard to space standards, officers advised that correspondence had been received that raised concerns regarding the size of some of the accommodation. It further made reference to a  Draft Subdivision of Dwellings SPD which was approved by Cabinet in December 2012, and incorporated the approaches in the  4th Set of Changes to the City of York Local Plan (April 2005). DCLG produced a new document 'Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described Space Standards' in March 2015, which set national standards.  However, advice in the Planning Practice Guidance stated that where a local planning authority wished to require internal space standards, they should only do so by reference in their Local Plan to the new nationally described space standards in the DCLG document. A subsequent Ministerial Statement stated that

 

"From October 2015: Existing Local Plan, neighbourhood plan and supplementary planning document policies relating to water efficiency, access and internal space should be interpreted by reference to the nearest equivalent new national technical standard. Decision takers should only require compliance with the new technical standards where there is a relevant current Local Plan policy."

 

In this case City of York did not have an adopted plan, and the Pre-Publication draft carried very little weight at this stage of its process. The size of the flats was considered in terms of amenity, and whilst some of them were small, they appeared to provide an acceptable level of accommodation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23b

23c

31 Malvern Avenue, York, YO26 5SF (17/01247/FUL) pdf icon PDF 117 KB

Change of use from dwelling (use class C3) to House in Multiple Occupation (use class C4), single storey cycle store and dormers to side and rear. [Holgate Ward]

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a full application by Mr Adrian Hill for the change of use from dwelling (use class C3) to house in multiple occupation (use class C4), single storey cycle store and dormers to the side and rear.

 

Officers advised that residents had raised concerns about the possibility of widening the crossover which could affect the trees or the verge. Officers confirmed that there was no intention to widen the crossover. 

 

Barry Kellet, a neighbour, spoke in objection to the application. He advised Members that 60 residents had signed a petition objecting to the change of use to HMO, 93% of those were families and 7% were retired people. He advised that there was not room for two cars to park at the front as one would prevent access for the other and the proposed access for the cars would not work due to other vehicles parked on the road.

 

Jonathan Hall, another neighbour, also addressed the committee in objection. He expressed concerns that the report did not reflect up to date drawings. He stated that the property was not well maintained, that there was no need for student accommodation and raised concerns in relation to insufficient parking and the  potential for noise disturbance in the quiet neighbourhood including possible gatherings in the large garden.

 

Shan Shan Chen, the agent for the applicant, then spoke in support. She advised Members that the application complied with the threshold on concentration of HMOs, would not lead to an unbalanced community and would not create a strain on drainage works. The proposed conditions in relation to parking and the cycle store complied with requirements and two medium sized cars could be manoeuvred into car parking spaces. It was envisaged though that the occupants were more like to walk, cycle or use other means of sustainable transport. She advised that she was happy to have a condition for a management plan limiting the type and number of occupants.

 

Officers advised that use class C4 allowed up to 6 occupants and, without a good planning reason to restrict occupancy in the use class, this wouldn’t normally be restricted through a condition.

 

Members raised concerns in relation to: difficulty in manoeuvring into the proposed car parking spaces would lead to additional parking on street and would exacerbate existing on street  parking issues; access to cycle parking and refuse bins in the front garden could be hindered by car parking; problems with drains in Holgate area; loss of family house; and an HMO would upset the balance on a street of family houses and have a detrimental impact on neighbours amenity.

 

Councillor Cannon then moved, and Councillor Carr seconded, a motion to refuse the application on the above grounds. On being put to the vote, the motion fell.

 

Other members expressed sympathy with the concerns of residents but did not accept that the application could be1 turned down on grounds of parking, acknowledging that a family house could lead to same number of cars as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23c

23d

Rowntree Wharf, Navigation Road, York (17/01905/FULM) pdf icon PDF 97 KB

Partial conversion of ground and first floor offices into 14 residential apartments (use class C3). [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a major full application by Piccadilly One Limited for the partial conversion of ground floor and first floor offices into 14 residential apartments (use class C3)

 

Consideration of the application for listed building consent in respect of alterations to allow the residential conversion (17/01906/LBC) took place alongside this application.

 

Officers advised that paragraph 4.14 of the report (Heritage Considerations) made reference to the works that would be carried out to the listed building to include:

·        Removal of modern internal partition walls and replacement with new partitions to create the individual residential units.

·        Removal of a modern metal staircase

·        Alteration to the existing suspended ceiling.

·        Alterations to the bin storage arrangements

·        Crime prevention measures including upgraded lighting and CCTV and clear safety film to windows.

 

For clarification, they advised that on the ground floor, the partitions would be wrapped around the side of five existing cast iron columns within the proposed flats.  A further 5 would be totally enclosed. However columns would be clearly visible within the corridor. On the first floor partition walls would be wrapped around two columns. The columns would remain intact, as such there would be no loss of historic fabric. On the ground floor columns would be clearly visible within the central corridor, with two visible on the corridor and lobby on the first floor.  This approach had been considered acceptable elsewhere in the building.  The tangible link of the history of the building had also been retained by the exposed brickwork within the window reveals. This was a revised approach to some parts of the building where dry lining covered such areas. Whilst not expressly mentioned within the report, this alteration to the building was taken into account in the submitted Heritage Statement and in the assessment by the Planning and Environmental Management Officer (Conservation).

 

With regard to consultation responses, Officers advised that Network Management (Highways) did not object to the application subject to a condition requiring details of cycle storage. They noted that site was situated in a particularly sustainable location in York city centre close to amenities public transport. Guildhall ward had the lowest number of cars per household in York with 51% of households not owning a car and 40% owning just 1. Although the site was considered to be in a sustainable location the limited off-street parking meant that without viable sustainable travel alternatives being promoted, the development had the potential to still attract multiple car ownership but without the off-street facilities to accommodate them. In order to address this, highways sought the following contributions/measures to incentivise sustainable travel and reduce the potential impact on the highway;

·        First occupiers to be offered the choice of either a free cycle or 6 month bus pass

·        First occupiers to be given membership of and drive time for the city car club. This was based upon a contribution of £200 per residential dwelling.

 

In relation to this matter officers advised that, given that there was no approved policy for this and it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23d

23e

Rowntree Wharf, Navigation Road, York (17/01906/LBC) pdf icon PDF 93 KB

Internal alterations associated with partial conversion of ground and first floor offices to 14 no. apartments. [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered an application for listed building consent by Piccadilly One Ltd for internal alterations associated with partial conversion of the ground and first floor offices to 14 apartments.

 

Consideration of this application took place alongside the previous major  full application (17/01905/FULM)

 

Officers advised that the report made reference to the works that will be carried out to the listed building to include:

 

·        Removal of modern internal partition walls and replacement with new partitions to create the individual residential units.

·        Removal of a modern metal staircase

·        Alteration to the existing suspended ceiling.

·        Alterations to the bin storage arrangements

·        Crime prevention measures including upgraded lighting and CCTV and clear safety film to windows.

 

Officers clarified that on the ground floor, the partitions would be wrapped around the side of five existing cast iron columns within the proposed flats.  A further 5 would be totally enclosed. However columns would be clearly visible within the corridor. On the first floor partition walls would be wrapped around two columns. The columns would remain intact, as such there will be no loss of historic fabric. On the ground floor columns would be clearly visible within the central corridor, with two visible on the corridor and lobby on the first floor.  This approach has been considered acceptable elsewhere in the building.  The tangible link of the history of the building has also been retained by the exposed brickwork within the window reveals. This was a revised approach to some parts of the building where dry lining covered such areas.

This alteration to the building was taken into account in the submitted Heritage Statement and assessed as part of the application process.

 

Officers advised that condition 2 be amended to include additional plans as detailed below.

 

Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and the amended condition below.

 

Amended Condition 2

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans and other submitted details:-

TCA-288-005 2020 REV A site plan

TCA-288-005 2001 REV A Ground Floor

TCA-288-005 2002 Rev A First Floor

TCA-288-005 2040 Typical Sections

TCA-288-005 106 REV A Typical partition detail

TCA-288-005 103 REV A Walkway and fire door elevation.

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

 

Reason:     Rowntree Wharf is a Grade II listed building and due to its height and enclosure by Wormalds Cut and the River Foss on three sides, is a landmark building in this part of the city.

 

Special regard has been given to the desirability of preserving the listed building, its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest as required by Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Great weight has been attributed to the harm identified, however in view of the significant changes that have already occurred within the building, by virtue of the level of sub division, it is considered that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23e

23f

Holly Tree Farm, Murton Way, York, YO19 5UN (17/01935/FUL) pdf icon PDF 83 KB

Two storey side and single storey rear extensions (resubmission) [Osbaldwick and Derwent Ward]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a full application by Mr and Mrs Richardson for two storey side and single storey rear extensions (resubmission).

 

Councillor Mark Warters spoke in support of the application as Ward Member and on behalf of the applicant’s family. He expressed his support for the proposals which would provide the family with additional space needed to accommodate parents within the family home. He advised that the house had nothing to do with the adjacent site of the same name and that the proposed extension was in keeping with the design of the existing building and would not impact on neighbouring properties. He circulated photos and a plan of the village which showed evidence of a range of additional buildings on the site in the past.

 

Members acknowledged the planning history of adjacent site which was under separate ownership. They noted that the officer’s recommendation to refuse was because they considered that the proposed extension was disproportionate to existing building which had had a major extension in 1980 and no very special circumstances had been put forward. Members were advised that they needed to consider what weight to give to the additional buildings shown on the plan, given that there was no information over their use, and the fact that it was a long time ago to be considering them in line with current planning regulations, and then decide whether the proposed extension was a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building.  

 

Some Members were in support of the officer recommendation to refuse the application as they did not feel that very special circumstances had been shown.

 

Councillor Flinders moved and Councillor Cannon seconded a motion to refuse the application on the grounds for refusal put forward by officers. On being put to the vote, this motion fell.

 

Other Members acknowledged that there was conjecture over the size of the original building and did not consider that the proposed extension was disproportionate to the building. They noted that the village street scene had changed over the years and did not feel that the proposals would be detrimental to the Green Belt, that it would aid family living and that permission should be granted.

 

Councillor Carr moved, and Councillor Gillies seconded, a motion to approve the application on the grounds that the proposed extension would not be disproportionate to the original building and would not harm the openness of the Green Belt. On being put to the vote, this motion was carried and it was:

 

Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to the standard approved plans and materials conditions.

 

Reason:     Members considered that the proposal was not a disproportionate addition to the original building and was not harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. As such the proposal complied with the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

23g

Deighton Lodge Limited, Rush Farm (Game Farm), York Road, Deighton, York (17/02380/FUL) pdf icon PDF 61 KB

Variation of condition 4 of permitted application 16/00267/FUL to increase number of events from 15 to 25 in total in any calendar year and condition 3 to allow the side garden to be used for wedding ceremonies. [Wheldrake Ward] [Site Visit]

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a full application by Mrs Carla Mitchell for the variation of condition 4 of permitted application 16/00267/FUL to increase the number of events from 15 to 25 in total in any calendar year and of condition 3 to allow the side garden to be used for wedding ceremonies.

 

Officers advised that two additional letters had been received from neighbouring residents which made the following comments:

·        Operators already allowed music outside

·        Guests congregated drinking  in the field that was conditioned to be for car parking only

·        The music could still be heard outside, it was not as loud as marquee weddings but it was still there. This goes to prove that the barn was not sound proof or the doors are jammed open.

·        Not audible with the doors/windows closed but it was with them open

·        Loud music was still a problem both at night and during the daytime

·        Noise level report done by ear

·        Deliveries and taxi drivers disturbed neighbours incl. late at night

·        The existing bank of trees to the front reduced noise form the A19 but vehicles travelling along the access could be clearly heard

·        Noise from the A19 was a constant where as noise from music varied

·        Financial implications should not be taken into account

·        Inadequate access with the A19

Officers also advised that the applicant’s sound engineer had provided the following information:

·        Comments had been made in connection with events which were not relevant to this application i.e. camping

·        There had been confusion over the recent Premises Licence Application which was granted with conditions on the 9th November 2017. This was not an application to extend to the hours of an existing Premises Licence, rather a new application to facilitate an increase in the number of events

·        The results of the noise survey demonstrated that the level of impact was negligible, due to both the high standard of noise insulation works undertaken on the barn, and the existing elevated levels of background noise due to the proximity of the A19, which was the dominant source of noise in the locality at all times.

 

Andrea Broomer, a resident of Deighton House, addressed the committee in objection to the application. She stated that an application to vary conditions 3 and 4 made a mockery of the original planning decision and she advised Members that they were disturbed by noise when weddings took place and increasing the number of events allowed would make this disturbance more frequent. A copy of a letter of objection from Ms Broomer had been circulated to members in advance of the meeting.

 

Michael Morris, another local resident, also spoke in objection. He advised Members that as most weddings were held over the summer period, extending the number of potential weddings could mean that weddings could be taking place most weekends in May, June, July and August. He raised concerns that the sound test had been carried out at the quietest wedding held here so was not a true indication of the normal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23g

24.

Appeals Performance and Decision Summaries pdf icon PDF 150 KB

This report (presented to both Planning Committee and the Area Planning Sub Committee) informs Members of the Council’s performance in relation to appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate between 1 July and 30 September 2017, and provides a summary of the salient points from appeals determined in that period.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a report which informed them of the Council’s performance in relation to appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate between 1 July and 30 September 2017 and summarised the salient points from those appeals.

 

Summaries of the appeals determined were attached at Annex A to the report and appeals that currently remained outstanding were listed in Annex B.

 

Resolved:  That the content of the report and annexes be noted.

 

Reason:     To confirm that Members are informed of the current position in relation to planning appeals against the Council’s decisions, as determined by the Planning Inspectorate.

 

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page