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 invited to declare any personal, prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests that they might have had in the business on the agenda. None were declared.

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 5 March 2014 at 5.00 pm.

Please note that an audio recording will be made of this meeting and that includes any registered public speakers, who have given their permission. This recording can be played back at http://www.york.gov.uk/webcasts

Residents are welcome to photograph, film or record Councillors and Officers at all meetings open to the press and public. This includes the use of social media reporting, i.e. tweeting.  Anyone wishing to film, record or take photos at any public meeting should contact the Democracy Officer (whose contact details are at the foot of this agenda) in advance of the meeting.

The Council’s protocol on Webcasting, Filming & Recording of Meetings ensures that these practices are carried out in a manner both respectful to the conduct of the meeting and all those present.  It can be viewed at: http://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/download/3130/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_of_council_meetings

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.

Erection of detached dwelling and garage with room in roof to rear. [Derwent] [Site Visit]

Members considered an outline application by Ms Anna Craven for the erection of a detached dwelling and garage with room in roof to rear.

In their update to Members Officers reported that the published map of the site was incorrect and that the application site would included the house at 25 Garden Flats Lane.

In response to questions from Members, Officers confirmed that;

·        The Conservation Area started further to the south and across the road from the site.

·        Drainage wise they felt that the development would comply with current established standards.

·        That in reference to a previous application on the site, the Planning Inspector had refused the appeal on the grounds of the impact on the neighbours of the proposed driveway and because of the impact of the proposal on the character of the area.

Representations in objection were received from Mr Preece, an adjacent neighbour to the application site. His comments to the Committee included;

·        The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that Local Authorities should resist developments in gardens.

·        Dunnington’s Village Design Statement (VDS) also stated that larger garden plots in the village should be protected.

·        That the development would be visually prominent.

·        That associated noise from vehicles using the driveway, which was close to the boundary of the site would affect the tranquil environment.

Some Members asked the speaker if previous applications had been submitted from adjacent properties. The speaker informed the Committee that an application from 23 Garden Flats Lane had included a development in their back garden. He reported that this application had been refused and that the Secretary of State had upheld this decision.

Officers clarified to Members that the NPPF did not say that Local Authorities should resist granting planning permission for development in gardens but that local planning authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example  where development would  cause  harm to the local area. Policy GP10 was considered to be in line with the NPPF.

Representations in support of the application were received from Jenny Hubbard, a planning consultant. She commented that;

·        That the application was a sustainable development.

·        That the site was large but the visual impact on neighbouring properties would be reduced through boundary treatment.

In relation to if the application would conflict with the VDS, the planning consultant responded that there would not be a material impact on the adjacent property, the density of the site. She added that the development of different styles of buildings in the village was encouraged in the Statement.

Representations in objection were received from Stuart Kay, the Vice Chairman of Dunnington Parish Council. He explained his reasons for objection. These were;

·        He felt the context of the part of the village, that the property would be located in, had not been considered by the applicant. In his view, the new building would be out of keeping with the existing buildings.

·        He felt the VDS had not been taken into account.

·        He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49a

Erection of 2no. dwellings and garage block with 1no. residential flat following demolition of existing buildings. [Guildhall] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr and Mrs Plowman for the erection of 2no. dwellings and garage block with 1no. residential flat following demolition of existing buildings.

Officers suggested that if Members were minded to approve the application that a number of conditions be attached to permission, such as;

·        That details of railings be agreed.

·        That trees be protected during construction works.

·        That surfacing for car and cycle parking be laid out before occupation.

It was noted that comments had not been received from Guildhall Planning Panel. A model of the development was provided by the applicant and appeared at the bottom of the table for Members to view.

Officers informed Members that;

·        The eaves level of the development would be lower than what was currently on the site.

·        The buildings would be lower than the city walls.

·        The main living rooms of the two storey dwellings would on the top floor and would have access outside and bedrooms located on the ground floor.

Representations in support were received from the applicant, Mr Tony Plowman. He commented that he was in attendance to answer questions that Members might have had.

Questions from Members included;

·        As the Council’s Environmental Protection Unit felt there were difficulties, would noise from the vicinity affect the use of the garden space.

·        Why were the two roofs on the two storey building and garage block designed to have contradictory bowed roofs.

·        Had other design options other than that of a contemporary design, been considered.

·        If the bricks used in construction would be recycled or new.

·        What would be the energy rating for the development.

The applicant reported that;

·        In relation to noise affecting the use of the garden space, 80% of the site would be landscaped to avoid this.

·        There were two bowed roofs because the development dropped down from a two storey building to a one storey building. The levels of the eaves would be at the same height.

·        Regarding design, a blend of contemporary and traditional styles were considered between the applicant, the Council and English Heritage. Comments had also been received from the Civic Trust.

·        Recycled bricks could be used in the construction, but there was a quality control issue with this and the applicant felt it was felt that new bricks would be better.

·        In regards to the energy rating that the buildings would have, windows could be inserted at a deeper level to allow for a great level of insulation.

Councillor Watson who had called in the application raised concerns about the application, including that he felt the development would detract from the views of the Minster.

During discussion some points were raised by Members were;

·        That although the development might detract from some views of the Minster, the existing view of the site was unattractive.

·        That although the design of the buildings proposed were modern, it did not appear to be too oppressive.

·        That although this would give Lord Mayors Walk a mixture of building styles, other streets  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49b

Change of use of part of caravan site to display and sell caravans.[Strensall]

Members considered a full application by Miss Raquel Nelson for a change of use of part of caravan site to display and sell caravans.

In response to a question from  Members, Officers confirmed that  pitches for touring caravans were considered to be appropriate development under the National Planning Policy Framework and Council Planning Policy.

However, if the pitches were being used for the retail sale of caravans, the applicant needed to demonstrate very special circumstances as to why the proposal should be approved contrary to the NPPF or Council Policy. No very special circumstances had been submitted.

Representations were received from John Chapman of Strensall with Towthorpe Parish Council. He supported the Officer’s recommendation of refusal and highlighted that the applicant had not given a description of the type of caravan being sold.

Resolved:  That the application be refused.

Reason:     The proposal by virtue of extending the developed area of the site and by introducing an element of outdoor retail use throughout the calendar year would materially harm the open character of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it by introducing a land use more appropriately located within the urban area contrary to Policy GB1 of the York Development Control Local Plan and paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Change of use from office to private day nursery (use class D1) (resubmission). [Dringhouses and Woodthorpe] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mrs Vanessa Warn for a change of use from office to private day nursery (use class D1) (resubmission).

In their update to Members, Officers reported that;

·        The description of the development had been amended to include covered decking to the rear of the building.

·        That two additional letters of objection had been received which highlighted a number of traffic and transport concerns.

·        That one further letter of objection raised concerns about the limited car space on the site and possible congestion.

·        That twenty one letters of support had been received which highlighted the need for a facility of this nature in the area and the increased accessibility for parents and children.

·          That a letter had been received from Julian Sturdy MP which stated that;

-The applicant had strong links with York College where she had taken apprentices on for her existing nursery.

-The previous business that was based at the site had 62 employees working there.

-There appeared to be a considerable demand for nurseries within the area.

-He accepted that there were concerns over the application, however he believed any problems could be overcome by approving the application and attaching conditions which must be met in order to limit the impact on local traffic and parking issues.

·        The Council’s Economy and Enterprise Manager said,

“The proposed creation of 47 jobs, and Little Green Rascals reputation as an Investors in People employer, meets the Council’s objectives to create jobs and grow the economy. York requires a full range of nursery provision and this would provide facilities in an area where demand clearly outweighs supply. Further, we would not want to see a lack of suitable nursery care in this area to act as barrier to residents’ access to employment and training.”

·     That the applicant had provided Officers with the following additional information;

·           York Racecourse had agreed in principle to allow staff to park on racecourse land (including Tadcaster Road stables) on non-racedays.

·          That Yorkshire Tourist Board stated that when they occupied the building with around 50 staff plus regular visitors there was never to their knowledge any issue over parking or entering/exiting the property.

·          Revised drawings showing the area of the access within the applicant’s control, this had reduced the width of the access to a single car width.

Representations in objection were received from Jill Morris, a local resident. Her concerns about the application related to;

·        The size of site and the small number of parking spaces. She felt that it would have a detrimental impact on the access road.

·        That parents would use the driveways of neighbouring properties to park. This had apparently happened during the building’s previous use as offices. This would lead to an increased cost in maintenance of driveways for the owners of the neighbouring properties.

·        Safety concerns for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.

Members asked if a wall could be built between the nursery ownership and the adjacent neighbouring property. Officers advised that this would be permitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49d

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

One Member raised a comment about the method of voting during planning meetings. He suggested that for a greater level of transparency, that named votes should take place. Some Members disagreed with the process of named voting, namely because it was time consuming not that Members wanted to preserve anonymity. The Chair stated that he would meet with other Committee Chairs to discuss this.