Agenda and minutes
Venue: LNER suite, Community Stadium
Contact: Sarah White Democracy Officer
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 Crawshaw declared a non prejudicial non pecuniary interest in agenda item as he was a school governor at a school in the South Bank Academy Trust, who were in advanced discussions with Fulford School regarding joining the Trust. Cllr Craghill also declared a non prejudicial interest in that item as a former governor at Fulford School over 10 years ago.
[Cllr Perrett joined the meeting at 16:34].
To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 26 May and 10 June 2021.
i. That the minutes of the Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 25 May be approved and then signed by the Chair as a correct record.
ii. That the minutes of the Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held 10 June 2021 be approved subject to the addition of the below text after the final bullet point under the minute for 37 Mitchell Way, York, YO30 4SW [20/01662/FUL] and then signed by the Chair as a correct record: After debate it was moved by Cllr Fisher and seconded by Cllr Daubeney that the application be refused on the grounds of inadequate car parking spaces, which would be detrimental to highway safety and the amenity of neighbours. On being put to the vote, the motion was not carried.
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.
The deadline for registering at this meeting is 5:00pm on Tuesday 6 July 2021.
Due to COVID-19 restrictions, and to ensure the safety of all attendees at the meeting, the number of public participants will
be restricted at this meeting. However, we continue to welcome
public participation and will facilitate as many public participants
as possible. For further information, please contact the Democracy Officer on the details at the foot of the agenda.
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 public meeting will be webcast including any registered public speakers
who have given their permission. The 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 a two storey teaching block following partial demolition of the Hawking Building and removal of temporary buildings, erection of temporary buildings, installation of external lift to Bronte Building and the creation of a vehicle access to the southern boundary of the site. [Fulford and Heslington]
Members considered a major full application by Jenny Scholes for the erection of a two storey teaching block following partial demolition of Hawking Building and removal of temporary buildings, erection of temporary buildings, installation of external lift to Bronte Building and the creation of a vehicle access to the southern boundary of the site at Fulford School, Fulfordgate, York, YO10 4FY.
The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application. This was followed by an update during which Members were advised of additional comments that had been received and of updated conditions. The planning balance and recommendation remained unchanged. Members asked officers a number of questions to which they answered that:
· On site management of access roads was the responsibility of the school and this was covered by condition 27.
· Students using buses would be sent around the southern side of the tennis courts and cyclists would dismount before entering the school site.
· Detail was provided on the number of trees being removed. There was a planning balance on the removal of trees.
· The rationale for the modelling of buses and additional car parking along the northern boundary and their impacts was given.
· There was a condition for a travel plan.
· The Germany Beck planning decision was made by the Secretary of State. It was clarified that there was a road being built up to the edge of the Germany Beck site.
John Heawood, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application on the grounds of the transport proposals and he asked for more consultation on this. He asked for all school buses to be removed and expressed concern regarding condition 27.
Dominique Healey a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. She opposed the travel plan, suggesting that it increased all traffic and cycle numbers. She objected to condition 27.
Vivienne Clare a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. She expressed concern regarding the residential amenity on Eastwood Avenue because of the impact on noise, air and light pollution and she made a number of requests concerning car parking on the site, protection of trees and shrubs. She was asked and clarified that she would like to limit car parking outside the school day.
Steve Lewis (Head Teacher of Fulford School and CEO of South York Multi Academy Trust) spoke in support of the application. He explained that the school provided outstanding education for thousands of families providing a vital link to the local community, He explained that the school was oversubscribed and the school would have no capacity to expand without the approval of the application.
In attendance at the meeting to aid Mr Lewis in answering questions was Alison Kelly (CYC Project Manager, Education). In response to questions from the Committee they clarified that:
· The development would be due for completion in September 2022.
· The one way system for traffic.
· The number of car parking spaces had been calculated by the officers leading the project.
· The school was ... view the full minutes text for item 11.
This application seeks permission for the erection of a new 15m high telecommunications mast with wrap around cabinet at base and associated ancillary works. [Rural West York]
This application seeks permission for the erection of a one bedroom dwelling above the access way between No. 4 and No.6 Howard Street. [Fishergate]
Members considered a major full application from Michael Hammill for the erection of one bedroom dwelling above access way between No. 4 and No.6 Howard Street.
The Development Manager outlined the application noting that a number of additional comments had been received. This did not change the planning balance and the recommendation remained unchanged.
Nick Pears spoke in objection to the application on behalf of a number of residents on Howard Street and Gardeners Cottage. He explained that Howard Street was a non-designated Heritage Asset and expressed concern about heritage asset preservation. He explained that the infill breaks the symmetry on Howard Street and he noted concerns about highway convenience and safety, and the privacy of neighbouring residents.
Gaby Higgs, the Architect for the Applicant, spoke in support of the application. She emphasized that they had been working on the site since 2017 and the application was part of a wider site on Fulford Road. She explained the amendments made to the application to address the objections and comments made and added that the proposals met planning policy. In response to Member questions she noted that:
· The building would be freestanding and there would be acoustic linings for sound attenuations.
· There would not be a maintainance issue for neighbouring properties.
· The door at the front of the building led to a cycle/bin store.
· Construction would be managed on the land within the site.
· The brick used would be different to that of other buildings on the street.
The Applicant, Michael Hammill, then spoke in support of the application. He explained that application was for a one bedroom started home on a sustainable city centre site. He noted that they had complied with every request from the planning officer, and he noted the comments of the conservation officer.
Members asked further questions to officers. Officers confirmed that:
· The appeal officer did not consider the houses on Howard Street to be non-designated heritage assets.
· The loss of access to the neighbours gable ends was not considered to be a loss of amenity.
Gllr Galvin moved approval, seconded by Cllr Fisher. This was subject to the inclusion of a CEMP. A vote was taken and it was:
Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the inclusion of a CEMP.
Reason: In applying NPPF policy there is a presumption in favour of the proposed development. A very similar scheme has been considered at appeal by a Planning Inspector. The Inspector determined there were no highway or safety related issues with the scheme. In principle the Inspector was supportive of the scheme. He had issue with architectural detail, which has been addressed in this amended scheme. There would be no unacceptable residential amenity issues. The scheme is recommended for approval, because it is NPPF compliant; there are no adverse impacts, which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.