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 not included on the Register of Interests that they might have had in the business on the agenda.

Councillor McIlveen declared a personal non prejudicial interest in plans item 4f (Garage Court Site at Chaloners Road) as Northern Power Grid (who had been consulted on the application) were a client of his employer.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Area Planning Sub-Committee held on  3 July 2014.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting of the Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 3 July 2014 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 on Wednesday 6 August 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.

Erection of 4no. two storey dwellings and 1no. three storey dwelling. [Clifton] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr David Brown for the erection of four two storey dwellings and one three storey dwelling.

Mr Cliff Caruthers had registered to speak on behalf of St Peters School in objection to the application. With regard to flood risk, he stated that the development would result in the loss of a flood plain and expressed concerns at the requirements of condition 9 which were the measures to manage flood risk. His other main concern was the loss of open space land and advised members that there was a shortage of play areas nearby. He advised that St Peters School would like to build netball and tennis courts on the site, which would also be available for community use, and expressed the view that the land should be retained for sports use.

Mr Martin Stancliffe, a local resident, also spoke against the application due to concerns regarding the loss of open space. He acknowledged that although the site was privately owned , it was designated open space and had been valued as such for many generations. Although the site had been allowed to become wild, the community was in need of a specific sports facility and amenity provided by this open space which he stated should not be developed.

Members acknowledged that the site was currently enjoyed by residents whose houses and gardens looked onto the area but agreed that they had not heard any planning reasons for refusal.

Members did not feel that flood risk was an issue, particularly taking into account the flood barriers along the riverside. They acknowledged the plan put forward by the school to provide sporting facilities on the site but noted that the school had not been able to purchase the land. They agreed that green space was needed but so was additional housing and noted that open space was available close by along the river and in the Museum Gardens.

Members agreed this was a good solution for what had become a derelict site. The felt that the proposed design and layout of the houses was suitable and that the back gardens were sizable.

Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to a section 106 agreement.

Reason:     The scheme would assist with housing supply in the city, which is a Government priority, and there are no significant adverse effects which would conflict with planning policy.  Although the site is designated as green space in the 2005 Local Plan, it has not been used in such a way for the past 5 years.  The scheme has been designed to mitigate against flood risk, and there would not be undue effects upon the character and appearance of the conservation area, residential amenity and highway safety.  A legal agreement to secure an open space contribution, secondary school provision and funding of traffic orders, to amend res-parking in the area, has been agreed.

Single storey building to provide retail unit (use Class A1) and replacement public conveniences. [Guildhall] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Healthmatic for a single storey building to provide retail unit (use Class A1) and replacement public conveniences.

Members provided an update on the application, officers provided the following updates on information contained in the report:

·        Paragraph 4.9 - Metal gates - replacement gates were now proposed to enable the gates to sit against the wall, and maximise space in the courtyard area.  Condition 3 was to be amended to agree replacement gate design.

·        Paragraph 4.10 - Door under the steps up to the City Wall - it was now proposed that this door was to be retained and blocked from behind.

·        Paragraph 4.11 - DDA requirements for toilets - applicants have confirmed the night toilet would be DDA compliant.

·        Paragraph 4.14  - Boundary wall with 1 High Petergate - It was proposed to re-build the boundary wall up to approx 4m.  Officers had no objection to this.  It was noted consent would be required from the neighbours, under the party wall act.

·        Condition 3 - large scale details - require details of roller shutter – There was no need for details of doors, as no new doors were proposed.

·        Conditions 5 (brickwork) & 6 (doors under steps) could be deleted. Brickwork would not be prominent from public realm and door was to remain.

Members questioned the decision taken to reduce the number of toilet cubicles from 13 to 7. Members were advised that the need for improved toilet facilities here had been raised during the public consultation for public realm improvements in Exhibition Square, and the amount of cubicles provided was considered reasonable by the proposed operators Healthmatic and the city council as client had not disagreed with this.

With reference to paragraph 4.11, Members asked for clarification on which toilets were DDA compliant and which would be wheelchair accessible. Officers advised that there was one wheelchair accessible cubicle, but that the night toilet would not be wheelchair accessible.

Councillor Brian Watson, who had called in the application to committee to assess the impact on listed buildings and consider the proposed retail development, addressed the committee. He advised members that the present facility comprised 13 toilets as well as urinals. He stressed the important role of urinals stating that 60 percent of male users of public conveniences use urinals. He questioned whether a reduction to 7 toilet cubicles was really sufficient to meet needs. He drew members attention to paragraph 4.3 of the report which stated that Section 70 of the NPPF advised that planning decision should aim to achieve places where there is “no unnecessary loss of public facilities” and questioned whether a reduction from 13 to 7 was in accordance with that advice. Finally he voiced the opinion that the window to the retail unit was alien to Bootham Bar itself.

Members asked  what work had already taken place at the site. Officers advised that the original building had been demolished in line with planning permission granted by City of York Council. They  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15b

Variation of condition 14 of permitted application 11/03269/FULM to allow deliveries to the retail store from 07.00hours. [Heworth]

Members considered a major full application (13 weeks) by James Hall & Co Ltd for the variation of condition 14 of permitted application 11/03269/FULM to allow deliveries to the retail store from 07.00 hours.

Officers confirmed that this was the only change to the existing permission which if approved would allow deliveries one hour early than at present.

Members noted that the Environmental Protection Unit had objected to the application as they felt it would lead to a loss of amenity for the residents living closest to the loading bay area.

Mr Alan Croston, the agent for the application, spoke in support of the application. He stated that the shop had very few deliveries, comprising normally one spar lorry each weekday and other visits delivering fresh bread etc and a refuse collection. The reason for the application was to provide more flexibility in delivery hours so vehicles could respond to traffic conditions and avoid congestion which would allow the store to get the shelves stocked as early as possible. He pointed out that other stores nearby were allowed to accept deliveries from 7.00am and the road was already busy by 7.00am.

The only concern raised by Members was the issue of potential noise from delivery vehicles when reversing. However no objections had been made to the application by neighbours.

Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to a section 106 agreement.

Reason:     The proposal is to allow delivery times to be consistent with the store opening times between Mondays and Saturdays.  The 07.00 opening time is regarded as day-time and there would not be an undue impact on residential amenity. Planning permission would replace the 2011 permission.  As such the previous legal agreement will need to be updated and the relevant planning conditions re-applied.

Single storey rear extension to retail units 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 (resubmission) [Hull Road] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr A Choudhury for a single storey rear extension to retail units 1,2,3,5,6 and 7 (resubmission).

Officers advised that condition 6 should be revised to read:

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby authorised full details of all facilities for the treatment and extraction of cooking and other odours and other air handling facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include a detailed plan of at least 1:50 scale identifying the precise location of the plant to be installed. Once approved each item of plant shall be fully installed and operational prior to the extensions hereby authorised being first brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter.

Reason:- To safeguard the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and to secure compliance with Policy GP1 of the York Development Control Local Plan.

Condition 10 should also be revised to include the need for the housing of a top opening Euro Trade Waste Bin.

Councillor Barnes, who had called in the application, had submitted a written representation to the committee as he was unable to attend the committee meeting to address the committee as ward member. His statement had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting together with his original letter to officers calling in the application. He made the following points:

·        Previous application for this site was unanimously rejected by members.

·        2 applications have been submitted for this site – this and one other which has already been rejected under delegated powers

·        Decision to call in applications  is due to the scale of the development, it's previous history and members previous decision.

·        Site is in sore need of development and gives support  for responsible development of the site,

·        This is still a largely residential area with a number of nearby properties so need to ensure residents' concerns are fully considered as well as view of Hull Road Planning Panel.

Mr Daniel Clubb, a neighbour,  had registered to speak in objection to the application. Ms Deborah Rhodes, another resident, had also registered to speak but she confirmed she was happy that Mr Clubb would cover the concerns she wished to raise in his presentation so withdrew her request to address the committee. Mr Clubb asked the committee to consider the living conditions for the resident of 277a Melorsegate which was a ground floor flat overlooking Matmer House yard. He stated that the flat only had 2 windows and these both overlooked the yard. Further more, the proposals would lead to a loss of light and aspect for nearby properties. He expressed concern about future plans for student accommodation on the site and expressed the view that the regularisation of bin storage and car parking could be achieved without the need for flats.

Officers provided clarification to the committee and explained that the other application which had been referred to by Councillor Barnes and the previous speaker was for a certificate of lawfulness  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15d

Construction of additional footpath from Ashbourne Way to Quaker Wood Pub and extension of existing path from Girvan Close to Lomond Ginnel. [Dringhouses and Woodthorpe] [Site Visit]

Members considered a general regulations (Reg3) application by City of York Council for the construction of an additional footpath from Ashbourne Way to Quaker Wood Pub and the extension of an existing path from Girvan Close to Lomond Ginnel.

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

Reason:     It is considered that the proposed path would not have any detrimental impact upon the amenities of nearby residential properties and the surfacing would not have any detrimental impact upon the character of the area.

Residential development to include 6no. apartments and 2no. houses with associated parking and landscaping. [Dringhouses and Woodthorpe] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by City of York Council for a residential development to include six apartments and two houses with associated parking and landscaping.

Officers provided an update in respect of consultation responses. They stated that the Internal Drainage Board had advised that the revised layout would not present any issues and therefore they did not object to the scheme. However they awaited further information in respect of surface water drainage. Officers advised the Committee that condition 4 required further details prior to the commencement of development.

Officers advised that Northern Power Grid had confirmed that they had no objections to the application.

With regard to the which flood zone the site was within, Officers confirmed that although the site was currently shown as being within Flood Zone 3 (FZ3) on Environment Agency flood maps, the applicant had undertaken a topographic survey which demonstrated that thesite should be in flood zone 1. Officers confirmed that both the Environment Agency and flood risk officers were happy with the scheme.

Andy Kerr, the Council’s Housing Strategy Manager and Helen Humphrey-Atkins, the Council’s Senior Architect were in attendance at the meeting. In response to a question from Members they confirmed that the entrance to the apartments was secure.

Members acknowledged that there were other three storey developments further up Chaloners Road, and agreed that the development would provide some much needed housing. 

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

Reason:     The site is brown field site in a sustainable location near to local shops, amenities and public transport links and it would, in principle, be suitable for redevelopment for housing purposes. It is noted that the Environment Agency accepts the submitted modelling demonstrating that the site is in fact at a low risk of flooding. The proposal would deliver affordable homes (built to Code Level 4) of the type needed within the City. In design terms, the scheme would be contemporary and it is considered that it would be of innovative design adding interest to the streetscene. There would be no adverse effect on highway safety and no significant adverse effects upon the amenity of surrounding residents. Because the City Council can not enter into a Section 106 Agreement with itself, a letter has been provided by the Head of Housing Services confirming that the a contribution of £ 7,524 towards amenity space and sports facilities in the locality will be made.

This report (presented to both Planning Committee and the Sub Committee) informs Members of the Council’s performance in relation to appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate from 1 April to 30 June 2014, and provides a summary of the salient points from appeals determined in that period. A list of outstanding appeals to date of writing is also included.

Members received a report which informed them of the Council’s performance in relation to appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate from 1 April to 30 June 2014, and which provided them with a summary of the salient points from appeals determined in that period. A list of outstanding appeals to date was also included in the report.

Resolved:           That the report be noted.

Reason:     To inform Members of the current position in relation to planning appeals against the Council’s decisions as determined by the Planning Inspectorate.