Agenda and minutes
Venue: Remote Meetings
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.
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 last meeting of the Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 17 September 2020.
It was noted that Cllr Fisher had left the meeting at 8:25 pm, before the named vote recorded at minute 20c). Subject to this amendment, it was:
Resolved: That the minutes of the Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 17 September 2020be approved
and then signed by the Chair at a later date.
At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered to speak can do so. Members of the public may speak on agenda items or on matters within the remit of the committee.
Please note that our registration deadlines have changed to 2 working days before the meeting, in order to facilitate the management of public participation at remote meetings. The deadline for registering at this meeting is 5:00pm on Tuesday, 13 October 2020.
To register to speak at this meeting please visit:
www.york.gov.uk/AttendCouncilMeetings to fill out an online registration form. If you have any questions about the registration form or the meeting, please contact the relevant Democracy Officer, whose details are at the foot of the agenda.
Webcasting of Remote Public Meetings
Please note that, subject to available resources, this remote public meeting will be webcast including any registered public speakers who have given their permission. The remote public meeting can be viewed live and on demand at www.york.gov.uk/webcasts.
During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates (www.york.gov.uk/COVIDDemocracy ) for more information on meetings and decisions.
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.
This application seeks permission for the erection of 8no. 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellinghouses, together with associated parking and landscaping following the demolition of the existing business premises (resubmission) [Guildhall]
Members considered a full application from Mr Joe Jackson for the erection of 8no. 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellinghouses, together with associated parking and landscaping following the demolition of the existing business premises. The application was a resubmission of a previous scheme which was refused by the sub-committee in January 2020.
Officers gave a presentation based upon the slides at pages 45 - 60 of the Agenda and reported:
(i) An additional representation had been received from a neighbouring resident at 21C Granville Terrace who reiterated their objection to the proposed development citing the elevated height and additional storey (3 storeys) would negatively impact on natural light and privacy and would be out of character with the existing properties and that the application also posed a security risk from the elevated gardens and the reduction to the height of the back wall. No new substantive issues are raised.
Additionally the objector highlighted that the applicant had submitted a number of inaccuracies in relation to their property. The planning report also makes inaccuracies including the property being positioned 3m from the boundary wall rather than 3.8m as detailed in the report and that the three rear first floor bedrooms are unobscured and serve lounge/kitchen areas.
Officers were satisfied that the change in the dimension, its internal layout and lack of obscurely glazed windows in the rear elevation of this property had not materially changed the relationship of this property with the application site and it is maintained that there would be a neutral impact to this dwelling as outlined in paragraph 5.40 of the officer report. Officers considered that this information had not impacted upon the overall planning balance and the recommendation for approval was unchanged from the published report.
(ii) The addition of an informative to condition 1 and the addition of a new informative no.5, if Members were minded to grant planning permission.
Cllr Fitzpatrick, Ward Member for Guildhall, spoke in objection, on behalf of local residents, on the grounds of the inappropriateness of the scheme in that it was overbearing and out of keeping with the surrounding streets, especially at the end of Lansdowne Terrace. She considered that the committee’s concerns regarding the loss of the employment use had not been addressed.
Mr Alex Molyneux, neighbouring resident, spoke in objection, on the grounds that there appeared to be a lack of concern from traffic management about the effects on parking and accessibility by inserting many houses with cars into the WLD space with one exit down Lansdown Terrace, which would prevent parking outside the properties at the end of Lansdown Terrace. He suggested that another exit from the development would have been much better.
Mr Matthew Dick, owner of 25 Granville Terrace and representing the concerns of his neighbours on Granville Terrace at no. 21 A, B and C , no 22 and no 24 spoke in objection stating that very little had been done to address the original concerns of residents and the committee, which ... view the full minutes text for item 24a
This application seeks permission for a single storey side and rear extensions, application of render finish, erection of detached garage to side with relocation of driveway to Cherry Grove [Rural West York]
Members considered a full application from Mr & Mrs Alex Dorman for a single storey side and rear extensions, application of render finish, erection of detached garage to side with relocation of driveway to Cherry Grove. The site had previously been granted planning approval for the erection of a bungalow to the side of 5 Cherry Grove which had not been implemented to date.
Officers gave a presentation based upon the slides at pages 79 -88 of the Agenda and reported that:
· an additional representation had been received from a neighbouring resident at 4 Cherry Grove, Upper Poppleton who had raised objections in relation to the intention to use the drainage strategy by Topping Engineers (Report 17473 Revision D dated March 2018) from the previous planning approval ref. 17/01968/FUL for the erection of a bungalow to the rear of 5 Cherry Grove and suggested that there be conditions in relation to the submission of a drainage scheme.
· Consultee comments had been received from CYC Flood Risk Management Team that the foul and surface water drainage from this site was considered/investigated in depth and agreed in consultation with Yorkshire Water under the 17/01986/FUL application and therefore the drainage from this revised scheme should be constructed in accordance with the same principles (surface water discharge no greater than 1.2 (one point two) litres per second) with appropriate attenuation up to the 1 in 100 year + 30% climate change event. As agreed with Yorkshire Water, this will connect to the existing manhole within the site which then connects to the public sewer and content the detailed design can be sought by way of our suggested conditions.
With regards to the 130mm cover over the attenuation tank provided within the drainage design to support the 17/01986/FUL application, this was considered sufficient when being constructed within a landscaped area.
The additional comments had been taken into account and the planning balance and the recommendation had remained unchanged from the published report.
Mr Neil Iacopi, local resident, spoke in objection on the grounds of drainage and flood risk concerns. This proposal is being assessed with the inadequate drainage plan approved on the previous proposal over two years ago. Revision D to the drainage plan remained a concern because the installation of the storage tank ignores the presence of ground water and would not comply with the manufacturer’s specifications and would therefore be in breach of Building Regulations.
Ms Lorna Welsh, neighbouring resident speaking in objection to the proposal, considered that this would exacerbate the frequent flood issues that she and her neighbours experienced, living in this area.
Mr Alex Dorman, the applicant was available to answer any questions that Members had.
After debate, Cllr Webb moved, and Cllr Crawshaw seconded, that the application be approved, in accordance with the officer recommendation. Members voted unanimously in favour of this motion and it was therefore:
Resolved: That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions listed in the report.
Reason for Approval:
For the reasons stated, ... view the full minutes text for item 24b
This application seeks permission for the erection of a four storey building to form a self-storage facility with associated access and landscaping (use class B8) [Rawcliffe and Clifton Without]
Members considered a full application from Mr Andy Wood for the erection of a four storey building to form a self-storage facility with associated access and landscaping (use class B8).
Officers gave a presentation based upon the slides at pages 103 – 107 of the Agenda and reported that:
· Comments from the Design, Conservation and Sustainable Development (Landscape) consultee had been received. They considered that the quantity of tree cover across the Clifton Moor estate to be in gradual decline due to incremental increases in the overall developed footprint. The proposed development sits further forward than the demolished building and the existing buildings on either side. The reduction in the width of the green verge adjacent to Clifton Moorgate reduces the capacity for larger trees to replace those that were lost. The proposed landscape was considered, to be a simple scheme that contained a detailed variety of species, and is of a suitable native flavour. It places a native hedge along the full south-east boundary, and includes 2 species of trees - Rowan and Birch - along the front. This would all be under-planted with wildflowers in grass. The officer would prefer to see the inclusion of some larger and longer-lived tree species within the mix and recommended that if planning permission is granted that a condition be added requiring a detailed landscape scheme to be submitted for approval and a condition requiring the proposed boundary hedge to be maintained at a height of not less than 1.5m.
· In response to the comments above, condition 17 was amended and condition 18 added.
· A further submission had been received from another consultee, the Flood Risk Management Team. Following the site specific infiltration testing carried out on the 17th September 2020 they confirmed soakaways would not work in this location. As the applicant had not been able to prove existing connected impermeable areas nor proved its outfall they were unable to support the submitted drainage design. They had however seen enough information for them to seek proper drainage details by way of conditions should planning permission be granted which should be in accordance with our Sustainable Drainage Systems Guidance for Developers.
In response to those suggestions officers confirmed that the conditions recommended by FRMT were already among those listed in the committee report (conditions 14-16).
The additional comments had been taken into account and the planning balance and the recommendation remained unchanged from the published report except where outlined above.
Ms Joanna Gabrilatsou of JLL and planning consultant for the applicant explained that the applicant was the co-founder of Sure Store and had entered into a partnership with the land owner, the Industrial Property Investment Fund. She outlined the concept for the proposed storage unit and explained that the building itself would meet ‘Very Good’ BREEAM standards, and how this was essentially capped due to the fact that no details were recorded as part of the demolition phase. This had accounted for 13 per cent of the credits required to ... view the full minutes text for item 24c