Local democracy during coronavirus

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates for more information on meetings and decisions.

Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Democratic Services  Email: democratic.services@york.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

50.

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.

 

Cllr Orrell declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in item 4c as one of the public speakers, Verna Campbell, had been the Sheriff of York during his time as Lord Mayor.

51.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 180 KB

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 20 January 2022.

 

Minutes:

Resolved:  That the minutes of the Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 20 January 2022  be approved and then signed by the Chair as a correct record.

52.

Public Participation

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, 14 February 2022.

 

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.

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.

53.

Plans List

To determine the following planning applications:

 

Minutes:

Members considered a schedule of reports of the Development Manager, relating to the following planning applications, outlining the proposals and relevant policy considerations and setting out the views of consultees and officers.

 

 

54.

9 Bransdale Crescent, Osbaldwick, York, YO10 3PB [22/00003/FUL] pdf icon PDF 296 KB

Single storey flat-roof rear extension, rear dormer and replacement of former detached garage with a replacement attached garage to side (retrospective). [Osbaldwick And Derwent Ward]

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a retrospective full application for a single storey flat-roof rear extension, rear dormer and replacement of former detached garage, with an attached garage to the side at 9 Bransdale Crescent, Osbaldwick, York YO10 3PB.  The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application and updated the committee on two additional representations.

 

There were no public speakers on the item and following Members’ questions the Officer responded that:

·        The building on the right side of the proposed west elevation was a garage.

·        The original extension had projected 4 metres from the property, the new extension projected 6 metres from the house.

·        There was a planning condition proposed that the flat roof of the extension could not be used as a roof terrace.  An informative was included in the planning permission for electric charging points as this was a replacement and not a new building.

·        If Members considered it necessary, there could be a condition added, with appropriate timescales included, for additional boundary planting.

 

Following a debate, Cllr Orrell moved for the approval of the application subject to the following additional conditions:

·        Prior to first occupation of the extension, boundary fencing must be installed

·        Hedging must be planted in the first planting season following occupation of the extension.

 

Cllr Fisher seconded the motion.  On being put to the vote, all were unanimously in favour and it was:

 

Resolved: That, subject to the conditions outlined above, the application be APPROVED.

 

Reason:     The development was considered to be appropriately designed and not to harm the appearance of the street scene or residential amenity. It complied with the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), policy D11 of the Publication Draft Local Plan 2018, policy H7 of the 2005 Draft Local Plan, and advice contained within Supplementary Planning Document 'House Extensions and Alterations'.

55.

The Lord Nelson 9 Main Street Nether Poppleton York YO26 6HS [20/02513/FUL] pdf icon PDF 398 KB

The erection of two detached dwellings on land to the rear of the Lord Nelson public house, Nether Poppleton.  [Rural West York Ward]

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a resubmitted full application that sought to erect two dwellings on land to the rear of the Lord Nelson

public house at 9 Main Street, Nether Poppleton, York, YO26

6HS.

 

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application in which he outlined the plans.  He also provided an update on the revised plan and highlighted the reason for the previous refusal.

 

Public Speakers

 

Richard Harper, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  He stated that the revised plan was more detrimental than previous plans.  He raised concerns regarding the dwellings being inappropriate in the Conservation Area and that there were potential problems with drainage.  In response to Members questions, he described the listed buildings in the immediate area.

 

Paul Harper, a local resident, also spoke in objection to the application.  He drew attention to the Public House being a community asset, and highlighted the Conservation Officer’s report that the harm to the Conservation Area would outweigh the benefits. 

 

Councillor Anne Hook, spoke in objection to the application as the Ward Member for Rural West York.  She spoke about the inconsistencies in the application of planning policy with regard to a similar planning application.  She explained that the building proposed for plot 2 was very close to listed buildings within the Conservation Area.  Cllr Hook noted the comments of the Conservation Officer and raised the concerns of the Design Conservation and Sustainable Development (DCSD) team as contained within the Officer report. 

 

In response to questions from Members, she confirmed that the public house was open and that she considered that there was insufficient parking for both the pub and the village. She also explained that she felt that the proposal constituted an overdevelopment of the site. She commented that she felt that the site should not be subdivided as the site was intrinsic to the pub.

 

Lionel Lennox, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  He highlighted the reasons for rejecting the previous application and explained that the dwelling on plot 1 was harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  He suggested reducing the floor plate and the gradient of the roof slope and make the house a 1.5 storey dwelling. 

 

In response to questions from Members he explained that the new building would be seen from both Hallgarth Close and Ferryman’s Walk.

 

Richard Irving, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He referred to the planning balance and highlighted the innovative design by local architects.  He noted that York Civic Trust, Highway Network Management and Flood Risk Management had not objected to the application. 

 

In response to questions from Members, the architect explained the revision to the plans since the previous submission and spoke to the advantages of the proposal.

 

In response to questions from Members, Officers gave the following responses:

·        There had been minor changes to plot 1 and significant changes to plot 2 which would mean that the dwelling would not be visible  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

56.

Royal Masonic Benevolent Institute, Connaught Court, St Oswalds Road, York, YO10 4QA [20/01471/FULM] pdf icon PDF 400 KB

Change of use of existing bungalows (Use Class C2) to residential accommodation where care is provided (Use Class C3(b)) with construction of associated parking court and access driveway from Fulford Park. [Fulford And Heslington Ward]

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a resubmitted, major full application, for the change of use of existing bungalows (Use Class C2) to residential accommodation where care is provided (Use Class C3(b)) with construction of associated parking court and access driveway from Fulford Park.  The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application and provided an update that covered additional representations and changes to the conditions.

 

Public Speakers

 

Verna Campbell, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  She described the parking situation and driving conditions in Fulford Park and explained that another access road would cause additional congestion.

 

Mary Urmston, a neighbour, spoke in objection to the application.  She was concerned that the plans would urbanise and therefore spoil the park. She felt that the refurbishment and subsequent rental of the bungalows and the proposed car park was for private, not public, benefit.


Jesper Phillips, a local resident, spoke in objection and raised concerns regarding the harm to protected trees, the impact on the conservation area and impact to Fulford’s heritage. 

 

Cllr Aspden, spoke in objection as the Ward Member for Fulford and Heslington.  He noted the similarity to the previous application which had been refused by the Committee.  He also stated his support for the bungalows return to use but, he raised concerns about the prominence of the bike store and car park and underlined the impact of the changes on the conservation area.

 

Cllr Juliet Koprowska spoke in objection on behalf of Fulford Parish Council.  She highlighted that the parkland was a community asset and that in her view, the public benefit did not outweigh the harm to the trees and wildlife.  She also raised concerns regarding the access road, the weight of the gates as well as the loss of the green corridor for wildlife.

 

Ray Haddock spoke in objection to the application and questioned the reasons for no previous refurbishment to the bungalows.  He raised concerns regarding the impact of the access road on the green space.  He stated that from an ecological point of view, the harm outweighed the public benefit.

 

Marc Nelson-Swift spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant, the Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution Care Company (RMBI).  He explained the importance of making the bungalows accessible for residents and the reasons for not extending the residential care to the bungalows.

 

In response to questions from Members, the applicant gave the following answers:

·        The bungalows would be rented at the affordable rent rate of 80% of the market value and that the residents would be local, two from the council list and the rest on a first come, first served basis.

·        It was not possible to provide physical access through the care home for vulnerable adults, current resources could not be diverted from the existing residents.

·        The road way was designed as no dig in order not to damage tree roots.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Officers responded as follows:

 

·        The previously proposed route for access was a reasonable distance from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page