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 disclosable pecuniary interests they might have in the business on the agenda.

Councillor McIlveen declared a personal and prejudicial interest in plans item 4e (Fulford School, Fulfordgate) as Northern Power Grid was a client of his employer. He stood down from the chair and left the room for this application and took no part in the discussion or vote on this application.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meetings of the Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 10 April and 8 May 2014.

RESOLVED:       That the minutes of the meetings of the Area Planning Sub Committee held on 10 April and 8 May 2014 be approved and signed by the Chair as correct records.

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 June 2014 at 5.00 pm.

Filming, Recording or Webcasting Meetings

Please note this meeting may be filmed and webcast or audio recorded and that includes any registered public speakers, who have given their permission.  The broadcast can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/webcasts  or,if sound recorded, this will be uploaded onto the Council’s website following the meeting.

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.

Construction of an access onto a classified road and installation of vehicle and pedestrian gates[Heworth Without Ward] [Site Visit]

This planning application has been withdrawn and will not be considered at the meeting.

This application was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting.

Display of 3no. wall mounted clip frame signs (retrospective) [Guildhall Ward] 

This planning application has been withdrawn and will not be considered at the meeting.

This application was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting.

Two storey front, first floor side, single storey front extensions and balcony to side. [Bishopthorpe Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr Michael Meek for a two storey front, first floor side, single storey front extensions and balcony to the side.

Councillor Galvin had submitted a letter in support of the proposals which made the following comments:

·        Although there may not be “special circumstances”, there was a need for the extension to facilitate accommodation for ageing parents

·        The proposed changes would in fact enhance the overall appearance of the property and show a much more balanced frontage.

·        The proposals would not have a harmful effect on the green belt as the view from the road and the surrounding area would remain almost unchanged due to the location of the property.

Mr Michael Meek, the applicant, had registered to speak in support of the application. He explained that the proposed changes would allow him to be able to care for his elderly parents at the property while allowing them all sufficient space in order to be able to live together harmoniously. He stated that the proposed changes would give the building a better appearance and the changes were sympathetic to both the building and the surrounding area.

Members accepted that the proposed design may well be an improvement on current house although acknowledged that design was an issue of personal preference. They noted however  that taking into account the previous extension, the proposed extensions including  the addition of the balcony, the percentage increase would be 53% on the original footprint which was far in excess of the 25% maximum increase guideline in policy GB4 of the Development Control Local Plan. They also considered the view of the building from the main road and the effect on neighbouring properties and expressed the view that the proposed changes would have an overbearing effect. They agreed that while the applicant’s intentions were laudable this was not very special circumstances, and Greenbelt Policy must take priority in this case.

Resolved:  That the application be refused.

Reason:     It is considered that the proposed increase in height of the existing side extension, the scale and design of the two storey front extension and the creation of a balcony would not appear subservient in relation to the host dwelling and would represent a disproportionate addition. Furthermore, the resultant dwelling would have an awkward appearance which would be at odds within this location and would be detrimental to the rural character of the area. As such, the proposal would conflict withadvice relating to design contained within the National Planning Policy  Framework (March 2012), and with Policies GP1 (a, b and c) and H7 (a and e) of the City of York Draft Development Control Local Plan and advice contained within Section 7 of York Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions and Alterations (2012).

It is considered that the proposed extension would constitute a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling and thus constitutes an inappropriate form of development that would, by definition, be harmful to the Green Belt. It is considered that the proposal would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4c

Two storey side extension (resubmission).[Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr W Jones for a two storey side extension (resubmission)

Officers explained how the current application differed from the previous application which had been refused in November 2013 and subsequently dismissed at appeal in January 2014.

The applicant, Mr W Jones, had registered to speak in support of his application. He advised the committee that the current application was a resubmitted scheme which addressed the concerns which had given rise to the previous refusal of the application. He assured Members that he had put a lot of effort into the scheme and had responded to questions from the planning officer. He confirmed that he had spoken to all his neighbours and that they were happy with the proposals.

From the photo of the street scene, Members noted that many of the semi-detached properties had been altered and extended in different ways so that the traditional street scene had changed.

With regard to the supplementary planning guidance in relation to rooflines, Members noted that this was guidance and not a requirement for strict observance. They considered that due to its location on the street corner, it was unlikely to create the effect of terracing.

Members agreed that while this was not necessarily a perfect solution, given the history of the site, it was in everyone’s interest, including the neighbours, to find a resolution for the applicant. They noted that neighbours did not object to the proposals.

Members questioned whether it was possible to remove permitted development rights to prevent any further increase in living space and were advised that it would be possible but such a condition would need to justified, it may be reasonable for example to add a condition removing permitted development rights for conversion of the garage in order that bike storage etc was maintained.

Members expressed concern about the possible treatment of the frontage of the plot and suggested adding a landscaping condition requiring the front section of the garden to be landscaped and a new tree planted. Officers advised that a scheme such as this would not normally be subject to a landscaping condition and that there would need to be an exceptional reason to justify it. Members stated that they felt that it was necessary in order to protect the appearance of the street scene.

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to conditions regarding matching materials, approved plans and additional conditions requiring the front garden to be landscaped and removing permitted development rights to prevent the garage being used for living accommodation in the future.

                   The wording of the following conditions has been taken from the decision letter dated 6 June 2014, sent to the applicant following the meeting.

1       The materials to be used externally shall match those of the existing buildings in colour, size, shape and texture.

Reason: To achieve a visually acceptable form of development.

2       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:- N-01-D 02 Rev. C

Reason:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4d

Erection of detached building to house electrical substation. [Fulford Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from the City of York Council for the erection of a detached building to house an electrical substation.

The Council’s Engineering Technologist attended the meeting to answer any  queries Members might have with regard to the need for the substation and choice of location.

Mary Urmston had registered to speak on behalf of Fulford Parish Council. She stated that the Parish Council was opposed to the erection of a substation on this site. She acknowledged the need for the substation due to the school’s expansion plans and the Germany Beck development, but pointed out that the chosen site was directly adjacent to a public footpath and tennis court. She suggested that a decision on this application should be deferred until the school’s expansion plans became subject to consultation in order that the school’s expansion plans and this application could be considered alongside each other. She questioned whether the substation needed to be as powerful as stated and whether there were any other suitable alternative sites.

The Council’s Engineering Technologist confirmed that all other sites had been discounted and advised that the 11,000 volts output was required as this substation would serve not just the school but the local neighbourhood with the existing substation being disconnected if this was approved. 

One Member commented that if a tree was removed from a local authority site such as this, another tree should be replanted.

Members acknowledged the school’s need to expand and agreed that not approving the substation would leave the neighbourhood vulnerable. They accepted that the building would impact on the street scene to some extent due to its functional appearance. However they accepted that there were no other suitable sites for the substation and that this was the best option for both the local community and the school.

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

Reason:     The new substation is essential to allow an adequate electricity supply to be maintained to the proposed enlarged school. Because of safety and technical reasons there are no alternative preferable locations. On balance, it is not considered the harm caused by the structure to the setting of the approach to the school as well as the adjacent open space, is such to outweigh the benefits from maintaining an electricity supply to the vital facility.

Single storey rear extension and dormer to rear. [Dringhouses/Woodthorpe Ward]

Members considered a full application from Mr and Mrs Cragg for a single storey rear extension and dormer window to the rear.

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

Reason:     The proposals are considered to comply with the national Planning Policy Framework, City of York Council Development Local Plan Policies H7 and GP1 and Supplementary Planning Guidance to Householders.

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

Councillor Warters raised concerns with regard to the enforcement of conditions/informatives which restricted the carrying out of demolition and construction works to specific times of the day. He referred to one site in particular and officers advised that they had written to the landowner in question regarding the breach of condition and were addressing the issue and would continue to monitor this site.