Agenda and minutes
Venue: Remote Meeting
Contact: Michelle Bennett
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.
Cllr Fisher declared a non-prejudicial, non-pecuniary interest in Agenda item 5) Barnitts, 28A Colliergate [19/02753/FULM] and [19/02754/LBC] in that he was friends with a member of St Andrews Place ??residents association check). He confirmed that his friend had not expressed a view on the application.
To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 15 October 2020.
Resolved: That the minutes of the Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 15 October 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 Monday, 9 November 2020.
To register to speak 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, on the details 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:
Note: Annexed to each report is a series of presentation slides showing photographs of the site and its environs and plans of the proposed works.
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 conversion of Drill Hall and upper floors of 28a Colliergate from retail to residential (use class C3) creating 10no. townhouses and 2no. apartments, and associated alterations [Guildhall]
In addition, application [19/02754/LBC] seeks Listed Building Consent for internal and external alterations in connection with the conversion of Drill Hall and upper floors of 28a Colliergate to residential use.
Members considered a full application and listed building consent from Oakgate Group Ltd and Barnitts Ltd. for the conversion of Drill Hall and upper floors of 28a Colliergate from retail to residential (Use class C3) creating 10no. townhouses and 2no. apartments, and associated alterations.
Officers gave a presentation based upon the slides at pages 51 - 71 of the Agenda and reported:
· A correction to the officer recommendation to approve the listed building consent application [19/02754/LBC], the recommendation should have been to ‘REFUSE’.
· An additional representation had been received from Highway Network Management regarding the waste collection arrangement. They advised that this would require management, to ensure bins aren’t left roadside for excessive periods. Due to the size of the bins and convoluted route between the store and roadside (through the drill hall) it is not expected waste services would enter the site for collection.
· An additional representation had been received from the Conservation Architect which had been in reply to the applicants note for members. The Conservation Officer considered that the significance of the drill hall does not rest “almost entirely on its external appearance”. Though architecturally the exterior is the most impressive part of the building, the spatial qualities and plan form are also of significance (i.e. its hall like qualities), which though compromised by the inserted first floor, are still legible. This understanding will be lost as a consequence of the proposed scheme. Furthermore, the exterior will be harmed by the introduction of the roof-lights and the new windows which will appear modern, compared to those existing which are traditional appearance.
It was reported that six people had registered to speak on this application.
Mr Paul May spoke in objection to the proposal expressing concern that the townhouses and apartments were likely be used as holiday lets; and that should this be approved, there would be adverse implications on housing policy.
Mr Phil Pinder, on behalf of York Retail Forum, spoke in support of the proposal urging members to approve the application as submitted, on the grounds that it is York’s best store and an employer of over 40 people.
Mr Andrew Lowson, spoke in support for the scheme and considered that it was vital for members to approve the proposal in order to secure the long term future of this retail unit in the city.
Mr Bill Woolley spoke in support of the application. He considered that the reason for the officer recommendation to refuse the proposal was due to the lack of affordable housing contribution. This stipulation had arisen due to the council’s conservation team and Historic England, which have sought to recreate something long gone by insisting that there is an internal open space from ground floor to roof level and from gable end to a new and reconstructed gable end. This had reduced the space of the scheme making it less viable, resulting in there being no further allocation to cover the affordable housing contribution
Mr Paul Thompson, the existing owner ... view the full minutes text for item 29.