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.

At this point in the meeting, Members were asked to declare any

personal, prejudicial or pecuniary interests not included on the

Register of Interests that they might have had in business on

the agenda. No interests were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Planning Sub-Committee held on Thursday 8August 2013.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting of the Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 8 August 2013 be approved and 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 Officer on the contact details listed at the foot of this agenda. The deadline for registering is Wednesday 4 September 2013 at 5.00pm.

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 Committee.

To determine the following planning applications:

Members considered a schedule of reports of the Assistant Director (City Development and Sustainability) relating to the following planning applications, outlining the proposals and relevant policy considerations and setting out the views of consultees and Officers.

Two storey side and single storey rear extensions (resubmission).

[Hull Road Ward]

Members considered a full application by Mr N Malloy for a two storey side and single storey rear extensions.

Officers provided an update on the application. They reported that a written representation had been received from Cllr Barnes who had called in the original application which was deferred at the meeting on 8 August as Members wished to see a detailed shadow study before making a decision. In his written representation he asked the committee to ensure they had seen the comments on shadowing provided by Ormonde Architects and considered the oral representation to be made by Saad Ali of 71 Yarburgh Way and the written representation of Stephanie Leeman, another neighbour, all of which cast doubt on the shadow reports submitted by the applicant and raised the following concerns:

·        The drawings were not accurate in their massing and appear to present misleading information.

·        Reference to the BRE document “ Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – A Guide to Good Practice” part of which discusses the impact of badly planned developments.

·        The reduction of overall depth of the extension does not in fact reduce the loss of light or overshadowing of the main living spaces.

His written representation drew Members attention to the two key aspects of the planning inspectors original refusal to uphold the applicants appeal (i.e. excessive size of the extension and resulting shadowing), and expressed the opinion that the resubmission still did not address these points so asked them not to approve the application.

A copy of a written representation submitted by Duncan Macleman or Ormonde Architects was also circulated to Members. This reiterated the concerns of Dr Ali as well as expressing concern regarding the lack of information on health and safety concerns raised with regard to the construction.

The Development Management Team Leader presented the results of the detailed shadow study, which had been submitted on behalf of the applicant by David Chapman Associates. This included 3D images showing the existing and proposed shadow pattern incorporating the proposed extension in terms of its impact on the closest neighbours. He explained that the most significant overshadowing occurred as the sun passes between the corridor between the two properties. He advised Members that this only provided a snapshot, and was only an aid to decision making. If Members were satisfied that the shadow study illustrated that the degree of overshadowing was satisfactory, they must then consider the issue of over dominance.

Representations were received from Leonardo Ali (on behalf of Dr Saad Ali). He stated that the reduced scale did not alleviate the reasons for the original refusal of the application and that the design and overshadowing caused by the planned extension would still reduce the amenity to his property. Furthermore he stated that the revised design conflicted with National Planning Framework and he raised concerns regarding health and safety during construction of the extension. 

Representations were received from Colin Malloy, the applicant. He advised the Committee that the shadow report had been submitted as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21a

Erection of 18no. dwellinghouses and 9no. apartments with associated works following demolition of existing buildings.

[Acomb Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full major application by City of York Council for the erection of 18 dwelling houses and nine apartments with associated works following demolition of existing buildings.

Officers provided a verbal update on the application. They reported that five further objections had been received from residents, the majority of which re-iterated concerns already expressed and included on the agenda. The main concerns related to the lack of on-site parking, the impact of additional parking and congestion in Old School Walk, particularly when the adjacent sports pitches were in use, the design of the houses being out of keeping, and the proximity of unit 8 to the adjacent property to the south.  An email had been received form the Ward Councillor, Tracey Simpson-Laing, requesting that parking restrictions and traffic calming measures be introduced in Old School Walk.

Officers reported that the Council`s drainage engineers were satisfied that the site could be adequately drained using standard storage and attenuation methods. This could be covered by condition. The only outstanding issue was the decommissioning of the existing sewers on the site, which would require a separate agreement with Yorkshire water. As this was an entirely separate issue to the planning application, officers requested that the recommendation be changed from “delegated authority to approve” to “approve”. A condition was also recommended to control additional windows being inserted in certain properties in order to protect the amenity and living conditions of neighbours.   

Members asked that the applicant set an example and be requested to reuse as much of the existing materials as possible such as the pan tiles, old brick as rubble etc.

In response to a query from Members, the Council’s Senior Flood Risk Engineer explained how the drainage scheme would work. He stated that the drainage scheme submitted by the applicant showed that they could achieve the necessary reduction in discharge rates through on site storage of surface water.

Members questioned whether discussion had taken place regarding the replanting of the existing yew tree at the front of the site. Officers advised they had liaised with the landscape architect who had raised concerns that if it was dug up, it could cause damage to the roots of the two adjacent large trees, but agreed they would look at the options further.

Representations were received from Robert Petyt, a neighbour living at 13 Turnberry Drive in objection to the application. He stated that he was not against development on the site but expressed the view that the proposals needed further changes due to the following concerns:

·        proximity of unit 8 to his property. This is the smallest distance between the development and any of the existing houses and it relates to the tallest property on the development.

·        The development would cover 90% of the rear of his garden and would create a shadow and unpleasant outlook - this would have a negative effect on family life and affect the value of the property.

·        Traffic on Beckfield Lane is very busy at times,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21b

Change of use from non food retail (use class A1)  to a commercial gym (use class D2) and alterations to existing car park.

[Skelton, Rawcliffe, Clifton Without Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application by Mr David Anderson for a change of use from non food retail (use class A1) to a commercial gym (use class D2) and alterations to existing car park.

Representations were received from Mr Neil Stanton, Operations Director for Roko Health clubs, in objection to the application. He raised the following concerns:

·        the proposed levels of vehicle and cycle parking were not sufficient for the projected numbers of customers.

·        The bus service information in the report was misleading. The number 6 service stops too far away from the site and the number 20 service finishes at 6pm and does not operate on Sundays.

·        Trip data had not been considered.

·        There were no parking restrictions on the road itself, so if the car park was full, cars would spill out onto the road causing a potential hazard.

Representations were received from local resident Terry Kettle in objection to the application. He raised concerns regarding traffic volumes in the area and the number of other health clubs in the vicinity and made the following points:

·        Traffic around Clifton Moor was already horrendous at peak times. This use would further exacerbate the problem.

·        There were already three other health clubs in the vicinity – Roko (approx 50 yards away), Fitness First  ( approx 100 yards away) and Atlanta Gym(approx 200-300 yards away) – it was ridiculous that another health club was opening up so close.

Representations were received from Gerard Sweeney, a planning consultant and agent for the application. He advised Members that the gym would operate on a “no contract” basis. Members would pay per month and their membership would be renewable monthly. Therefore if members found problems with the parking they could chose not to renew their membership. With regard to other health clubs in the area, he advised Members that this was purely a gym and studio- with no pool, sauna, steam room facilities or cafe. This therefore provided a different offer to other gyms nearby.

Highways officers confirmed that the applicant had submitted a projected level of membership and their views had been based on these figures which envisaged that there would be approximately 100 members using the venue at any time. The parking provision was considered adequate for the projected level of usage.

Members noted that customer use would be spread throughout the day rather than all being on the premises at once, and that highways had commented and were happy with the proposals based on the projected numbers of customers. They acknowledged that the number of nearby gyms was an issue of commercial competition and not a planning issue which they could consider.

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

Reason:     The building to which the application relates was initially constructed in the late 1990s as a night club. Planning permission had been sought for change of use of the building from its most recent use as a retail unit selling outdoor clothing and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21c

Outline application for demolition of existing buildings and erection of replacement petrol station with shop and drive-thru restaurant with associated parking and access [Rural West York Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered an outline application by Skelwith Group for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of replacement petrol station with shop and drive-thru restaurant with associated parking and access.

A copy of a letter from Langley’s Solicitors, sent on behalf of the owner of one of the two houses immediately adjacent to the application site raising objections to the application, was circulated to Members of the Committee. A copy of a response to this letter from ID Planning on behalf of the applicant, was also circulated to Members.

Officers provided an update on the application. They advised that a Flood Risk Assessment had now been received in response to concerns relating to the level of information in respect of surface water drainage submitted with the proposal. They noted that the application site lies within Flood Zone 1 which has the lowest defined risk of flooding and is defined within Environment Agency guidance as being for a” less vulnerable use”. The built footprint of the site as re-developed would also not be materially different from the existing and any increase in surface water discharges would be minimal.

Officers also advised that seven further representations had been received from properties in the vicinity but that no new issues had been raised.

They also advised that Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) had provided further comments in respect of the air quality impact of the proposal and indicated that they felt the proposal would not give rise to any harm. In respect of the noise impact of the proposal, EPU have also indicated that subject to a number of detailed conditions to safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring property then the proposal would not give rise to any material harm. The following conditions were recommended (and would supersede the recommended conditions 5 and 6)

·        Restriction of deliveries to 7:00 to 23:00 Mon – Sat with no deliveries on Sundays or bank holidays.

·        Details of all machinery, plant and equipment to be installed in or located on the use hereby permitted which are audible outside of the site boundary when in use, shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval.

·        All such approved machinery, plant and equipment shall not be used on the site except in accordance with the prior written approval of the local planning authority.  The machinery, plant or equipment and any approved noise mitigation measures shall be fully implemented and operational before the proposed use first opens and shall be appropriately maintained thereafter.

·        Details of an acoustic noise barrier to protect the residential properties on the south and south eastern boundary of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Officers advised that since the committee report was prepared it had been brought to their attention that the second bungalow within the site which had been identified for demolition if the proposals are implemented was in fact let on a six month lease to a former employee of the garage. The applicant had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21d

Change of use of existing ground floor retail units to either retail (class A1), office (class A2), restaurant/cafe (class A3) or drinking establishment (class A4) including extensions to rear; change of use of upper floors from hotel to residential accommodation (class C3) to form 18 new apartments; external alterations and associated works. [Guildhall Ward]

 Members considered a major full application by Mr and Mrs A Graham for a change of use of existing ground floor retail units to either retail (Class A1), office (class A2), restaurant/café (class A3) or drinking establishment (class A4) including extensions to the rear, change of use of upper floors from hotel to residential accommodation (class C3) to form 18 new apartments, external alterations and associated works.

Officers advised that an additional condition should be included to deal with screening to air-conditioning units, if these were needed on the rear roof.

With regard to proposed condition 7 (landscaping) officers advised the Committee that it was no longer proposed to have residential access to the flat roof area at the rear.  The applicants would prefer not to be required to landscape this area due to costs (installation & maintenance). Officers noted that whilst landscaping of the area would be desirable for future residents the condition was not necessary (there would be no wider public benefit and the scheme would not be unacceptable without landscaping).  As such officers accepted that the condition could be deleted.

They also advised that they had received revised plans which included minor revisions which had been agreed detailing of the shop front (affecting unit 1). They advised that these changes would visually improve the shop front by reducing the amount of glazing around the ATM in order to discourage advertising posters from being displayed.

Members were advised that the variety of uses was in order to enable an element of flexibility and that these uses could be controlled by relevant conditions.

Resolved:           That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report, the amendment to condition 2 (plans), the deletion of condition 7 (landscaping) and the additional condition regarding screening of the air conditioning unit.

Amended Condition 2

 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:-

Floor plans - 045A, 046C, 009D, 010D, 011E, 050C

Elevations - 051D, 052A, 053, 054A, 055A, 069

Large scale details 067B, 68B, 69A, 70A and 71

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Additional Condition

External plant

Details of how any plant to be installed on the flat roof area at the rear shall be screened from view (from surrounding residential units) shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to installation of the plant. The screening shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and reasonably maintained at all times.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

Reason:     The proposals would help meet identified housing need, providing accommodation in a sustainable location and through conditions residential amenity for future occupants would be adequate.  The proposals would bring the building back into use and improve the appearance of the conservation area.

Single storey side extension. [Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward]

Members considered a full application by Mrs Margaret Gosling for a single storey side extension.

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

Reason:     It was considered that the proposed extension would not have any detrimental impact upon the character of the area or neighbouring residential amenity.

Any other business which the Chair considers urgent under the  Local Government Act 1972.

Further to concerns raised by Members at the meeting on 4 July 2013 (Minute 12 refers) with regard to the accuracy of information on Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) which was available to them when considering planning applications. At this meeting it had been agreed that the chair of the Area Planning Sub-Committee should liaise with the Assistant Director for City Development and Sustainability and the Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning and Sustainability with regard to the collation of HMO information.

The Development Management Team Leader presented the following information to Members:

·        A summary of HMO Decisions since Article 4 direction came into force (20/04/12)

·        HMO Appeal Decisions

·        Summary of Database now being used to calculate HMO concentrations for planning applications for changes of use from Class C3 (dwellinghouse) to houses in multiple occupation.

Members were advised that the Council Tax Student Exemptions database was updated on a yearly basis, and had been done so in May of this year, but that case officers were advised to contact Council Tax regarding any new planning applications in order to obtain the most up-to-date information.  

Members agreed that the summary of HMO decisions was useful but asked that it be broken down to Ward level.

Resolved:  That the information provided be noted.

Reason:     In order that Members are kept informed regarding the collation of information on HMOs.