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 that they might have had in the business on the agenda.

Councillor Galvin declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5a) Askham Bryan College, Askham Fields Lane (Minute Item 28a refers) as he hired out the sports hall four times a year for horticultural purposes.

No other interests were declared.

To consider excluding the public and press from the meeting during consideration of annexes to agenda item 7 (Planning Enforcement Cases Update) on the grounds that they are classed as exempt under Paragraph 6 (Information which reveals that the authority proposes (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or b) to make an order or direction under any enactment) and  Paragraph 7 (Information relating to an action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime)  of Schedule 12A to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (, as amended by the Local Government (Access to information) (Variation) Order 2006.

It was decided that as there were no confidential annexes circulated at the meeting that there was no need to exclude the press and public.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 15 October 2015.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the Area Planning Sub Committee held on 15 October be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record subject to the following replacement;

                   Councillor Hunter Councillor Mercer declared personal non prejudicial interest in plans item 4h (Lidgett House, Lidgett Grove) as the applicant was Councillor K Myers a fellow Member of the Conservative Group.  

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 November 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 was one registration to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme on general issues within the remit of the Sub Committee.

Councillor Warters spoke regarding Agenda Item 6) (Appeals Performance and Decision Summaries) and Agenda Item 7 (Planning Enforcement Cases Update). He made reference to one appeal case which specified that that the Inspector required that a management plan for a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) be submitted establishing the ‘types and numbers of occupants’ and he felt that this needed discussion in relation to one of the applications due to be considered on the agenda.

He also stated that in the Enforcement report it advised Members to contact Officers if they had any queries about cases, he informed the Committee that he had raised queries but had yet to receive responses.

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.

Part demolition and extension of the CoVE building,demolition of 2 no. agricultural buildings and construction of car park [Rural West York] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full major application by Askham Bryan College for the part demolition and extension of the CoVE building and the demolition of 2no. agricultural buildings and construction of a car park.

Officers advised the Committee that Network Management had confirmed they had no objections to the proposed scheme. Representations had been received from the Flood Risk Management Team who had no objections in principle but requested that details of the proposed drainage scheme were sought via conditions. Further information had been submitted in respect of surface water drainage and so to enable the Flood Risk Management Team to consider the details, it was suggested that the Officer recommendation be altered to give delegated authority to the Assistant Director to approve the application following the consideration of submitted drainage details and subject if necessary to additional conditions regarding drainage.

Members noted that the application would create a car park and did not detail the number of spaces included and that there had been no traffic assessment undertaken. They also asked about the monitoring of the travel plan for the site. Members suggested additional signage be added on to the public footpath throughout the site.

Officers reported that Highway Network Management had submitted no objections to the application and that the college had students from all over North Yorkshire and although was served by public transport, it was a difficult site. Officers explained that a travel plan had been attached to the approval of the previous approval of the outline planning application on the site, which had been decided at the Main Planning Committee had not yet come into force.

Resolved:  That Authority be delegated to the Assistant Director to approve the application following the submission of new drainage details and additional informative regarding signage.

Reason:    The proposals are not inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined by paragraph 89 of the NPPF and would not result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt. As such the application is considered to comply with policies GP1, GB1, HE10 and NE6 of the DCLP and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Erection of dwelling [Haxby and Wigginton] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr S Yeoman for the erection of a detached two bedroomed dwelling house.

Resolved:  That the application be approved.

Reason:     The proposal subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report will respect the general character of the area and will have no adverse effect on the amenity of the neighbouring residents. It also complies with national guidance in the NPPF and Development Control Local Plan Policies and that it is acceptable subject to the imposition of relevant conditions.

Change of use from dwelling (use class C3) to House of Multiple Occupation (use class C4). [Osbaldwick and Derwent] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr and Mrs Ravindra Gullapalli for a change of use from dwelling (use class C3) to House of Multiple Occupation (use Class C4).

In their update to Members, Officers reported that there had been two letters of objection handed to them at the site visit. One was signed by the occupants of 19 Kirkdale Road and another signed by three people who did not provide addresses, but one of the authors had signed a petition referred to in the Officer’s report.

The comments from the occupants of 19 Kirkdale Road included;

·        A number of family homes had been lost to HMOs in the street

·        HMOs commanded higher property prices and the street would end up as an annexe to the University

·        HMOs lead to untidy gardens and increase in burglaries (when empty)

·        The Council is requested to check that all properties currently being used as HMOs have been approved.

The other letter stated that;

·        The number of students living in Kirkdale Road were spoiling the community

·        There was a lot of empty student accommodation in York

·        There were houses in Kirkdale Road being used by students without HMO consent

·        They wished to live in peace in quiet and maintain local amenities.

The Committee were also notified of an error in the calculation for the percentage of HMOs at neighbourhood level. The actual figure was 7.58% as opposed to the 10.5% in the Officer’s Report. The figure included the additional HMO in Kirkdale Road that had been identified by the Planning Enforcement Officer.

Councillors asked about the additional comments that had been received in respect of the application sent in and asked if there was any evidence to support these. One Member referred to the minutes from the previous meeting which stated that the two Executive Members on the Committee, Councillors Carr and Gillies, would take forward for consideration a review of the Supplementary Planning Document. She asked them about the timetable for this and it was confirmed that this was an ongoing process and would be fed into the Local Plan.

Representations were received from the Ward Member Councillor Warters. He informed the Committee that during the consultation period, he had been informed of five properties which were rental properties including one which was an HMO and was not on the Council’s database of registered HMOs. He highlighted that this meant that the figures in the Officer’s report were incorrect. However this had now been corrected in the Officer’s update.He felt the main issue of neighbourhood amenity asides from noise, rubbish storage was parking, in that there would only two spaces for four occupants, which would mean that additional cars would park on the narrow road.

Some Councillors questioned the reliability of the data that the Council had in that the report mentioned that there were three ‘known’ HMOs out of 41 properties and that Members should not approve an application even if the numbers had been amended. They added that in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28c

Erection of 1no. three storey dwelling with storage building to rear following demolition of existing dwelling [Micklegate] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr and Mrs M Nicholas for the erection of a 1no. three storey dwelling with a storage building to the rear following the demolition of an existing dwelling.

An update to the Committee report was circulated, full details of which are attached to the online agenda for this meeting. The main points were as follows:

·        The Tadcaster Road Conservation Area was designated in 1975. The area excludes the application site. It extends north from the site to include the semi detached properties opposite the site and a further semi detached pair fronting Mount Vale.

·        To the original submission there were 17 objection responses and 1 letter of support from local residents, and 1 letter of objection from an interested party.

·        To a revised proposal there had been 4 letters of objection and 1 letter of support from local residents at the time the Officer’s report was written and 15 responses in objection and comments from 10 neighbouring properties since the report was finalised.

·        The 15 responses reiterated previous concerns about the design of the building, impact on the local environment amenity and public safety during construction.

·        Councillor Hayes wished for Members to made aware of the views of the 17 local residents on Trentholme Drive who had objected to the scheme.

·        Two of the responses from R and C Lee and D and S Finch were circulated at the meeting (they were subsequently attached to the online agenda following the meeting).

·        The Conservation Architect did not consider that there were grounds to refuse the application and it would be unlikely that the dwelling would warrant inclusion on the Local Heritage List.

·        The Council’s Landscape Architect requested widening of the vehicle access be omitted from the scheme to avoid damage to the Cherry tree and requested a condition to be added to permission if granted.

·        Two additional drawings had been submitted to support the application- a shadow analysis and an overlooking analysis.

·        Late revisions had been made to the drawing numbers following the site visit and comments from the Landscape Architect:

·        1197_AR50_01_F-Proposals

·        1197_AR50_01_C-Roof Plan

Questions from Members related to the air source heat pump and the enforcement of informatives. In response Officers stated that the Environmental Protection Unit requested a condition be added to permission to mitigate any noise from the air source heat pump. In relation to those informatives that could be enforced, it was reported that the hours of construction and demolition could be enforced.

Representations in objection were received from a local resident, Ross Lee. He made reference to several sections of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and how he felt that the application did not meet the necessary requirements as the application did not include a heritage assessment that considered the impact the property would have on the Conservation Area.

Further representations in objections were received from Daryl Goddard who lived next door to the property. He raised concerns about significant overlooking and felt that a three  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28d

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 July and 30 September 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 considered a report which informed them of the Council’s performance in relation to appeals determined by the Planning Inspectorate between 1 July and 30 September 2015 and provided them with a summary of the salient points from appeals determined in that period.

One Member asked why an Inspector had imposed a condition to be attached to an appeal decision in regards to the ‘types of occupants’ for  an allowed HMO. Officers responded that this particular Inspector felt that as the proposal specified that the HMO would be for working people it would not breach the SPD and would contribute to balanced communities, she also considered that the appeal property was not be likely to be occupied by a family.

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 considered a report which provided them with a quarterly update on planning enforcement cases for the period 28 July 2015 to 23 October 2015.

Discussion took place on Section 106 funding and its usages. It was suggested that further clarity be sought in on where the monies were being spent in wards.

Resolved: That the report be noted.

Reason:    To update Members on the number of outstanding planning enforcement cases.