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. None were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 9 November 2017.

Resolved:  That, subject to the word ”Compensation” being substituted with “Compulsory Purchase”  under the Reason in item 20b, the minutes of the Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 9 November 2017 be approved and then 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 Officers on the contact details listed at the foot of this agenda. The deadline for registering is at 5.00pm on Wednesday 10 January 2018.

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

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 part two/part three storey building comprising 17 extra care flats and 8 dementia care flats following demolition of no.27 St Helens Road [Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a Major Full Application by Abbeyfield Society (York) Ltd for the erection of part two/part three storey building comprising 17 extra care flats and 8 dementia care flats following demolition of no.27 St Helens Road.

Officers gave an explanation of the layout of the site including access and egress to the site and buildings, car parking and the scale of the building. They advised that four trees were covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and there was a similar loss of trees to that of the previous scheme submitted. It was confirmed that there would be affordable housing on site, which would be secured by a 106 Agreement.

Deborah Sillence, a local resident, addressed the committee in objection to the application. She raised concerns regarding the building height, size and proximity to local residents, the loss of open space and the detrimental effect that increased traffic to the site would bring to local residents.

Mark Chapman, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. He made a number of comments in objection, suggesting that paragraph 14 of the NPPF should not outweigh GP1 of the Local Plan. He noted that the scale of the proposal was larger than that previously submitted and that 69 residents had objected to the application.

David Marshall, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. He expressed concern that the building was larger than the one in the previously refused application, there had been no noise, light or shading surveys undertaken and there were other sites more suitable for the scale of development.

Roy Wallington, Programme Director - Older Person's Accommodation, City of York Council, spoke in support of the application. He explained that there was a significant shortage of care places for the elderly and an increase in the number of elderly over the coming years. He advised of the need for quality accomodation for extra care patients and dementia care patients.

In response to the question of whether extra care accomodation could be built elsewhere, there was competition for land and sites coming forward for development. He added that the application delivered extra care and enhancement to the existing care on the site.

Andrew Arnell, the applicant (and registered manager of Abbeyfield House), addressed the committee in support of the application. He explained that the proposal would provide flexible person centre care and that the application responded to the need for their services. He noted that the average age of residents is 92.

Andrew Arnell was asked and noted that Abbeyfield House was in it’s twentieth year of service.

Gareth Jackson, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He addressed how the scheme was different from previous proposals and explained the access to the site, proportional development of the site and how green space would be provided around the building.

Cllr Fenton, Ward Councillor for Dringhouses and Woodthorpe, addressed the committee to raise local residents’ concerns in relation to the application. He explained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28a

Conversion of 25 and 26 Barbican Road into 12 apartments with associated external alterations and 3 storey rear extension [Fishergate Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a Major Full Application by Mr D Blackwell for the Conversion of 25 and 26 Barbican Road into 12 apartments with associated external alterations and 3 storey rear extension.

Officers advised Members of amendments to condition 2 (plans), condition 8 (materials) and condition 9 (cycle parking storage area).

Councillor Taylor, Ward Councillor for Fishergate, spoke in objection to the application. He explained the objections raised by residents. He noted that the amenity for residents would be poor and the waste management of the development would be poor. He added that a number of developments in the area were for student accommodation and there was a need for family accommodation.

Following a question about waste management, Officers advised that:

·        Waste management would be the responsibility of the building owner

·        A condition for waste management could be added to the conditions.

·        The committee could delegate authority to officers to add in a condition regarding waste management.

During debate on the application, Members raised concerns regarding the overdevelopment of the site, the development being too dense and the lack of amenity for residents. Following debate it was:

Resolved:  That the application be refused.

Reason:     The proposed development, by reason of the size, scale and massing of the proposed extension is considered to be out of character with the existing pattern of development on the east side of Barbican Road in the vicinity of the site, resulting in harm to the visual amenity of the area. Furthermore the proposed number of residential units to be accommodated within the development would result in a poor standard of residential amenity and a restricted outlook for future residents.  Therefore the proposal would result in the overdevelopment of the application site contrary to Policy GP1 and H8 of the Draft Development Control Local Plan (2005) Policy D1 of the Pre-Publication Draft Local Plan (2017) and paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Conversion of basement and ground floor from restaurant (use class A3) to office use (use class B1), and upper floors from office (use class B1) to 10 dwellings (use class C3). Construction of roof extension, second floor rear extension and alterations to elevations [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a Major Full Application by Mr M Easterby for the conversion of the basement and ground floor from a restaurant (use class A3) to office use (use class B1), and upper floors from office (use class B1) to 10 dwellings (use class C3) and the construction of a roof extension, second floor rear extension and alterations to elevations.

Members were advised by officers that the Environment Agency had raised no objections to the application.

Mark Stothard, the agent for the applicant was in attendance to answer questions. Following a question regarding soundproofing, he explained that two noise reports had done and they were satisfied that the upgrades to the windows and party walls would address noise levels. He added that any concerns regarding noise could be addressed during development.

Members discussed the proximity of the proposed development to a nearby nightclub. In response to a Member question, the Development Manager advised that officers could only require by condition what soundproofing was considered necessary for the development to be acceptable, in this case the noise surveys had not identified an issue with noise transfer through the walls of the building.

Following debate it was:

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

Reason:

                     i.        The site is an existing mixed-use corner building that is currently partly occupied. The proposals involve the internal relocation of offices within the building, the loss of existing restaurant uses and the introduction of residential use within the building.  The scheme is not considered to have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the city centre.  The site is considered to be a sustainable location for residential and office uses, with the most vulnerable uses (residential) not at risk of flooding.

                    ii.        The applicant has undertaken further investigations, in respect to noise from neighbouring late night uses and has detailed mitigation measures to ensure that any occupants of the flats would be adequately protected and an adequate standard of residential amenity would be provided.  The objection raised by the operators of the adjoining late night bar and nightclub is considered to have been addressed.

                          iii.            The proposal has been amended in design terms, and offers sensitive extensions and alterations to preserve the Conservation Area.  The proposal is therefore recommended for approval subject to the suggested conditions including a condition that amends the Traffic Regulation Order, removing the site from the Residents Parking Zone. The proposals accords with national guidance in the NPPF and the Draft Development Control Local Plan Policies.

First floor side extension (resubmission) [Osbaldwick and Derwent Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a Full Application by Mr and Mrs Starzinski for the erection of First floor side extension (resubmission).

There was no officer update.

Stephanie Leeman, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. She referred to the extension permitted in 1991 noting that the proposal was for a hipped roof to an existing single storey extension. She noted that the roof extension was not negatively impacting on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as the plot was not in an open rural setting. Members were provided with a set of her briefing notes and design and access statement regarding the application.

Coucillor Warters, Ward Councillor for Osbaldwick and Derwent, addressed the committee in support of the application. He explained that the proposals sought to keep the bungalow in symmetry and that the proposed application would not negatively impact and would benefit the Osbaldwick Conservation Area.

Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to the inclusion of a condition regarding materials.

Reason:     The proposal is not considered to be harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area. This would support national planning policy in relation to heritage assets and good design contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and with Policies GP1 ("Design"), H7 ("Residential Extensions") and HE3 ("Conservation Areas") of the City of York Draft Local Plan along with the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance 'House extensions and alterations' December 2012 which encourages appropriate types of development within residential neighbourhoods.

Change of use from dwelling (use class C3) to House in Multiple Occupation (use class C4) [Osbaldwick and Derwent Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a Full Application by Mr Nikolai Krasnov for the change of use from a dwelling (use class C3) to House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (use class C4).

The Development Manager advised that in the neighbourhood where the property was is located, 6.42% of properties are shared houses, and within 100m of the property 7.14% are shared houses. If planning permission was granted the property would remain under the thresholds. 

Cllr Warters, Ward Councillor for Osbaldwick and Derwenthorpe, addressed the committee in objection to the application. His concerns related to the impact of amenity because of extra noise, disruption, parking problems created through the change of use of the property to a HMO.

Members debated the application, expressing a number of views and it was:

Resolved:  That the application be approved.

Reason:     The proposed change of use would not breach the thresholds set out in the approved SPD and the use would not have any significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of neighbours or the character of the area.  Therefore, subject to conditions, the proposal is in compliance with the NPPF, the SPD on 'Controlling the Concentration of Houses in Multiple Occupation' and draft Local Plan policy H8: Conversions.