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 in the business on the agenda. None were declared.

To consider excluding the public and press from the meeting during consideration of annexes to agenda item 6 on the grounds that these are classed as exempt under Paragraphs 1,2 and 6 of Schedule 12A to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to information) (Variation) Order 2006.

Resolved:  That the press and public be excluded during the consideration of Annexes to Agenda Item 5 (Planning Enforcement Cases Update) on the grounds that they  are classed as exempt under Paragraphs 1, 2 and 6 of Schedule 12A to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Area Planning Sub-Committee held on Thursday 4 September 2014.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting of the Area Planning Sub Committee held on 4 September 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 Officers on the contact details listed at the foot of this agenda. The deadline for registering is Tuesday 7 October 2014 at 5.00pm.

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 Officers (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.

Change of use from use class B8 (warehouse) to restricted use class A1 (retail) with insertion of additional mezzanine floor space. [Huntington/New Earswick Ward]

Members considered a major full application (13 weeks) from Mr James Browne for the change of use from use class B8 (warehouse) to restricted use class A1 (retail) with insertion of additional mezzanine floor space.

Officers advised that paragraph 4.7 of the report should read “A substantial customer car park lies within the site to the east of the existing building and the Monk’s Cross Park and Ride site lies to the south west.” “Examples of items for sale would be delivered to the store in the new circumstances, in the early morning or late evening as with other similar furniture and household furnishing retailers.” The majority of purchased goods would be delivered directly from the warehouse to the purchaser’s residence. They also advised that an existing warehousing facility at Sheriff Hutton Industrial Estate would be used in place of the current site.

Mr James Browne, the applicant, addressed the committee in support of the application. He explained that the proposals would help the business thrive in an ever changing retail environment and would provide them with the additional space they needed in order to enhance their current displays.

Members agreed that the proposals would benefit the business acknowledging that Rodgers was situated close to other major retail developments.

Resolved:  That the application be approved.

Reason:     Rodgers of York comprises a medium sized independent furniture and household goods retailer located within a single storey unit directly to the south of the Monks Cross Retail Park. Planning permission had been sought for the change of use of the adjacent warehouse associated with the retailing operation to provide further retail floor space including a modest mezzanine linking the two elements of the retailing operation. A detailed Retail Impact Assessment together with a Sequential Test had been submitted to support the application. These demonstrated that the proposal, as being for the expansion of a long standing local business would have only a negligible impact upon the vitality and viability of the City Centre. At the same time a detailed Transport Statement had been submitted which demonstrated that the number of additional car journeys generated by the proposal would also be negligible.

Erection of 9no. apartments with associated parking and landscaping following demolition of garages. [Westfield Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application by the City of York Council for a General Regulations (Reg3) application for the erection of nine apartments with associated parking and landscaping following the demolition of garages.

Officers reported that the Flood Risk Management Team had responded and advised that as the site was in low risk Flood Zone 1, it should not suffer from river flooding. They had no objections to the development in principle but proposed conditions on foul and surface water (including provision of sustainable drainage systems).

The Internal Drainage Board (IDB) had warned that the site was in an area where drainage problems existed and development should not be allowed until the Authority was satisfied that surface water drainage has been satisfactorily provided for.  A condition was therefore proposed to agree a scheme for provision of surface water drainage works prior to the commencement of development.

Yorkshire Water advised that there were 225 mm diameter sewers crossing the site. In this instance building over may take place under part H4 Building Regulations.The development should take place with separate foul and surface water drainage. The local sewer did not have capacity to accept additional discharge of surface water. Conditions should be applied to agree foul and surface water drainage schemes prior to commencement of development, and to ensure that there was no piped surface water discharge prior to the completion of the approved surface water drainage scheme.

The City Ecologist responded that the proposal would not have a  negative impact on Hob Moor Local Nature Reserve.  The new apartments would be set further back from the boundary than the existing garages, providing a small buffer of gardens and a new hedgerow would be planted along the entire length of the site. The trees and hedgerow on the boundary within Hob Moor would be retained. The flat bitumen roofed garages were very unlikely to support bats and a bat survey was not considered necessary. The report proposed that a light sensitive scheme be incorporated and this should be conditioned.

Officers advised that two further letters of objection had been received which expressed concerns that there was a waiting list for garages and the scheme would exacerbate existing parking problems due to shortage of parking. They stated that it would also have adverse impacts on flooding and drainage, the plans were unclear as regards removal of trees and the Ecological Report findings were inaccurate and a bat survey was required.

Officers proposed two additional conditions with regard to drainage, an additional condition regarding ecology and two additional conditions with regard to highways (HWAY 40 Dilapidation Survey and HWAY 31 Mud on the Road)

In response to questions raised, officers provided the following information:

·        The need for traffic regulation orders (TROs) was a separate process to the planning process and would be dealt with by highways and consulted upon in accordance with normal procedures.

·        If the conditions to mitigate for contamination and for the presence of landfill gas were adhered to, there would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26b

Erection of 13 no. dwellings with access from Hornbeam Close. Two storey side extensions to 11 and 12 Hornbeam Close. [Skelton, Rawcliffe, Clifton Without Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application (13 weeks) by Berkeley DeVeer for the erection of thirteen dwellings with access from Hornbeam Close and two storey side extensions to 11 and 12 Hornbeam Close.

Officers advised that since publication of the report, the applicant had made  minor changes which had been sought by the council’s landscape architect and corrected errors in the plan numbering with the result in condition 2 requiring amendment.

In response to a query raised at the site visit, officers advised that the highway authority had confirmed that Hornbeam Close had been adopted as a public highway.  As to notification, the highway authority had a standard list of internal and external recipients mainly comprising statutory undertakers, the emergency services, ward/parish councillors, the Land Registry and relevant council departments such as street cleaning, refuse services and highway maintenance.  Local residents were not individually notified although the status of local roads normally showed up on local searches.

Members had also asked whether construction access would or could be taken from Centurion Office Park rather than from Hornbeam Close.  The applicant had told officers that he would be happy for construction access to be taken exclusively from the office park up until the highway connection was made with Hornbeam Close at the end of the construction period.

Lastly, Officers reported that they understood that the unilateral undertaking for a financial contribution towards open space was nearing completion.

In response to a question from Members, Officers advised that as the proposed development was an extension of an existing residential area, once built it was deemed more sensible for access to be from the existing residential area rather than through the business park. The applicant has made a private arrangement for access through the grounds of two existing houses.

Mr Andrew Hards, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application on behalf of all residents of the close.

He expressed concerns that the proposals would lead to an increase in traffic in Hornbeam Close, potentially including larger vehicles, and that the shared surface would come to an end. He advised Members that although traffic  was modest during the week, it was bad at weekends.

Mr Jason Whitfield, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He advised Members that this was a suitable and sustainable site for new housing. He confirmed that access to the new development through the existing housing estate was preferential to access through the industrial estate which could lead to more highway safety issues and increase journey times to schools etc.

Members agreed that it was preferential for the development to become part of the existing cul-de-sac acknowledging that if access was from the north there was a risk of it becoming a through road. They felt that it would improve the area.

Councillor Warters asked that it be recorded that he voted against the motion to approve the application.

Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to a Section 106 Agreement and subject  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26c

Erection of detached dwelling with associated garage and parking. [Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered an outline application from Mr L Harrison for the erection of a detached dwelling with associated garage and parking.

The Committee were informed that Councillor Semlyen, who had hoped to speak at the meeting, had asked for the following objections to be taken into account.

·        The scale and massing was excessive

·        Access and parking issues re safety and volume of cars

·        Draining concerns

·        Concerns over whether full and correct info was given

Officers advised that an additional letter had been received from the occupier of 7 Helmsdale. This advised that surveyors have been employed and were of the opinion that a section of the driveway, to the front of number 7 Helmsdale, which formed part of the application site, did not fall within the ownership of the applicant. Land Registry documents had been provided and a letter requested that the plans were amended prior to permission being granted to prevent unnecessary confusion if the site was subject to sale to a third party. Officers confirmed that if there was a  discrepancy, the area of land was so small, this would not make a material difference as regards accessing the site.

Officer recommended an additional condition (NOISE7) to restrict hours of construction  and that condition 7 be amended requiring the proposed cycle parking for the existing dwelling at 9 Helmsdale shown on the approved drawing to be implemented.

Mr Geoff Headley, a neighbour, spoke in objection to the application. He advised Members that ,in the 1980s, the council had refused an application for a similar dwelling and at that time there was less traffic. He stated that a four bed house would be too large, could not be classed as affordable housing and may mean an additional four cars of unknown sizes making parking dangerous.

Mr Paul Butler, the architect, spoke in support of the application. He advised that the scale, height and massing of the proposed dwelling followed pre application advice received from planning officers and the height had now been reduced further.  The plot was a good size, was well screened and discreet. The proposed building would accord with planning policy and would address Councillor Semlyen’s concerns.

Some Members expressed concerns that the proposed house would leave little space on either side and an inadequate amount of garden. However other Members felt that the existing and new house would still have good sized gardens, of a similar size to other nearby properties. Members agreed that the house was on the large size but not unreasonable. They agreed that the height of the proposed building was similar to and would not dominate other nearby properties but recommended that a condition be added stating that the ground level should not be raised.

Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to a Section 106 agreement and subject to the conditions listed in the report and the additional and amended conditions below.

Additional Condition

The hours of construction, loading or unloading on the site shall be confined to 8:00 to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26d

The purpose of this report is to provide Members with a continuing quarterly update on planning enforcement cases.

Members received a report which provided them with a quarterly update on planning enforcement cases.

Resolved:  That the report be noted.

Reason:     To update Members on the number of outstanding enforcement cases within the Sub-Committee’s area.