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. Councillor Orrell declared a personal non prejudicial interest in plans item 5a (33 Upper Newborough Street) as he knew the applicant’s agent who was Councillor Chris Cullwick.

To consider excluding the public and press from the meeting during consideration of agenda item 7 (Planning Enforcement Cases Update) on the grounds that it is  classed as exempt under Paragraph 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 agenda Item 7 (Planning Enforcement Cases Update) should members need to discuss individual enforcement cases 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 9 July 2015.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting of the Area Planning Sub Committee held on 9 July 2015 be signed and approved 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 Wednesday 5 August 2015 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

https://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/file/6453/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_council_meetingspdf

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 Sub-Committee.

To determine the following planning applications:

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

Use as a House in Multiple Occupation for up to 4 occupants within use class C4.[Clifton]

Members considered an application for a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use from Mr Keith Cullwick for use of the property as a House in Multiple Occupation for up to 4 occupants within use class C4.

Officers asked Members to note a correction to the report. Paragraph 4.8 referred to the applicant’s agent being the “brother in law of the applicant”. This should in fact read “brother of the applicant”.

The Committee was reminded that this application was not an application for planning permission but for the granting of a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use and Members should decide whether its use as a House in Multiple Occupation is in accordance with the law.

Members agreed that, based on the evidence contained in the report, that the property had been occupied as an HMO by up to 4 occupants within the C4 Use Class on the key date of 20^th April 2012, when the Article 4 direction came into force,  and this use had continued until the date of the application.

Resolved:  That the application for a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use be granted.

Reason:     The Council is satisfied that, on a balance of probability, the property was in use as a House in Multiple Occupation within use class C4 by up to 4 occupants on 20 April 2012, prior to the introduction of the Article 4 Directive removing permitted development rights for changes of use between Use Class C3 (Dwellinghouse) and Use Class C4 (House in Multiple Occupation) and that the use continued as such at the date of this application. A Certificate of Lawful Development for this use if therefore justified.

Two storey front and rear extensions, first floor side extensions and erection of garage block to front (resubmission)[Copmanthorpe] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr and Mrs Jennings for two storey front and rear extensions, first floor side extensions and the erection of a garage block to the front (resubmission).

Officers advised that there were two main issues with the proposals. The first was the two storey side extension which they felt would reduce the existing visual gap between the host dwelling and 19  Tadcaster Road, which was an important characteristic of the style of properties in the area. The second was the scale of the proposed detached garage block to the front would harm the character of the area and due to its footprint, height and siting in the front garden, would significantly harm the outlook from 19 Tadcaster Road. They asked Members to consider whether the harm identified outweighed the general presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Mr Matthew Pardoe addressed the committee on behalf of the architects in support of the application. The applicant’s architect, Kate MacNeill, was also in attendance. Mr Pardoe advised Members that, if approved, the current ad hoc appearance of the building would be replaced with a cohesive design. The revised scheme addressed the two main concerns raised by officers in relation to the withdrawn scheme. It would not bring the property any closer to the properties to either side than at present, and a similar separation to the road would occur, therefore there would be no significant impact on the amenity of adjacent residents and no neighbour objections had been received. He advised that there would be considerable landscaping around the garage so the outlook for 19 Tadcaster Road would not be significantly affected, nor would the proposed garage have a significant detrimental impact on the area.

One Member questioned whether the garage could be located on the large area of land at back of the house instead of it being at the front of the plot but was advised that there was no access to the rear as the property from the front as the building stretched from one side of the plot to the other as did another six out of eight other substantial houses on the street.

Mr Pardoe explained that due to the change in levels of the sloping site, the house would be elevated in comparison to the garage which would sit at a lower level and this had been the reason for choosing this position for the garage.

One member expressed concern about the impact of the proposed changes on the property’s boundaries and concern about the garage.

Members agreed it had been beneficial to go on the site visit. They noted that the property was currently a combination of many different add ons and was not a particularly attractive building, and they felt that these proposals would produce a more coherent appearance. They acknowledged that the garage could not be positioned at the rear of the site due to access issues.  They noted however that there was good landscaping around the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13b

This report (presented to both Planning Committee and the Area Planning Sub Committee) informs Members of the Council’s performance in relation to appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate between 1 January and 30 June 2015, 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 January to 30 June 2015, 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.

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 and informed them of a change in the way in which updates on enforcement cases would be presented to Members from now on.

Resolved:  That the report be noted.

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