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 Taylor declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4a) 71-73 Fulford Road as he lived on New Walk Terrace which was in a residential priority parking scheme zone area.

No other interests were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meetings of the Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 10 March and 7 April 2016.

In regards to Minute Item 54a) Groves Chapel of the7 April minutes, Councillor Taylor requested the deletion of the words“but they thought this was only to put a floor across the interior of the chapel to use it as a meeting room” reported in response to a question from a Member, on the grounds of accuracy.

Councillor Taylor moved deletion of this response. On being put to the vote, this fell.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meetings of the Area Planning Sub Committee held on 10 March and 7 April 2016 were approved as correct records and then signed by the Chair.

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 May 2016 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 at the meeting 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 (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.

Conversion of guesthouse to 10no.flats (use class C3) [Fishergate] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application by the Skelwith Group for the conversion of a guesthouse to 10no. flats (use class C3).

Officers gave an update to Members in which they informed them that revised plans had been submitted to show that applicants could make use of the rear alley at the rear of 63-69 Fulford Road to transport bins and cycles. They also proposed an additional planning condition to require a travel plan, if Members were minded to approve the application.

They reported that Councillor D’Agorne had submitted comments in support of the recommended conditions of cycle parking, the offer of bus passes to the first residents and an additional car club spot in close vicinity. He had asked Highways Network Management if two car parking spaces outside of the site were suitable and asked for the short section of the ‘guest parking’ respark to be replaced with double yellow lines, as there were concerns over safety given the proximity of the junction opposite and to residents coming from Ellwood Court. However, Officers felt that this was not relevant to this particular application and could be dealt with under highway legislation.

Members sought clarification from Officers on access and rights of way in relation to parking on the site. It was reported that planning permission did not override  private property rights so the owners of the rear access which belonged to the owners of Ellwood Court, could prevent future residents from crossing their land if they wanted to. However, there was a potential access from a footpath to the rear of 63-69 Fulford Road which could be used.

Representations in objection were received from Karen Lee, the Company Secretary of the owners of the freehold of Ellwood Court. She mentioned that the residents of Ellwood Court held the freehold of the rear access and that they had given conditional access to Saxon House when it was a hotel to cross over the land. This condition remained in place whilst it was a hotel, however it would no longer operate as a hotel and therefore that condition would be extinguished for the proposed flats. She expressed concerns that the only parking spaces that were proposed, were ones that would be accessed by crossing land owned by Ellwood Court residents, and that the applicants had not discussed the arrangements with residents.

Officers were asked whether residents could be provided with a bus pass as they had been excluded from the R20 zone as suggested by the Council’s Highway Network Management. It was confirmed that they could be provided with bus passes and car club membership and this was encouraged within the travel plan for the development.

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report and the prior completion of a planning obligation under section 106 of the Planning Act to secure the following:

·        Car Club Membership-1 year

·        Bus Pass- 6 months

Reason: The development is acceptable in principle and compared to the extant use  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58a

Erection of dwelling to rear and replacement garage

[Osbaldwick and Derwent] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr Peter Hodgson for the erection of a dwelling to the rear and a replacement garage.

In their update to Members, Officers reported that Paragraph 4.7 should refer to Design Guideline 9 of the Village Design Statement. It was incorrect for the report to suggest that there was not a specific guideline, although the guideline did not oppose sub-division in principle.

Representations in support of the application were received from Martin Hodgson the son of the applicant. He informed Members that the proposed dwelling was for his father who was blind so that he could live more comfortably.

Representations were received from Stuart Kay on behalf of Dunnington Parish Council. He informed the Committee that they did not support back garden developments, of which this would be the third in the village. The development would be a single storey house with a dormer in a line of single storey houses.

Further representations were received from Councillor Brooks, the Ward Member. She spoke about the ineffective surface water drainage in Dunnington. She commented how she felt that small developments in the village added to the water discharge levels and she requested that if approved that a surface water run off rate of 1.4l/s/ha be conditioned.

In response to questions from Members about whether they could condition the surface water run off, Officers  replied that the plans for the development had shown a hydrobrake system and a request could be made for a permeable driveway. Nonetheless, with a permeable driveway this was unlikely to reach the level desired.

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report and the addition of an informative to state that permeable paving should be used as a means of surface water drainage.

Reason:   As the application accords with the national planning policy in the NPPF and relevant policies in the 2005 City of York Draft Local Plan.        

Erection of raised platform with children's playhouse and attached slide and steps (retrospective) [Rural West York] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr Nicholas Reynolds for the erection of a raised platform with a children’s playhouse and attached slide and steps (retrospective).

Officers informed Members that they had received additional comments from an objector to the application. The comments stated that those residents who were in support of the application would not be directly affected by the structure and that they had no objections to the ground level equipment.

Representations were received from the applicant Nicholas Reynolds. He informed the Committee how he had built the structure for his children out of reclaimed materials. Following comments from an objector he had increased the planted screening to restrict the view.

In response to a Member’s question, the applicant confirmed that the platform had been constructed in 2011 and the playhouse in 2013 and that he did not intend to demolish it if he moved away as his daughters wished to retain it for their children.

Some Members suggested that if the playhouse had no windows and the walkway was not accessible that there would not be an issue with overlooking. Officers confirmed that it was not the playhouse that was issue, it was with the use of the slide and the platform.

Other Members suggested extending the fence and having dense planting on the platform to reduce overlooking of the neighbour’s garden. Consideration was also given to giving a temporary approval of between three and fifteen years.

Councillor Gillies moved and Councillor Cannon seconded approval.

Resolved: That the application be approved; subject to the imposition of conditions related to screening to be delegated to Officers for consideration and approval.

Reason:  Subject to a condition to increase the screen between the play structure and the neighbouring garden it is considered that any loss of privacy would not be so significant as to outweigh the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

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 31 March 2016, 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 January and 31 March 2016. The report also included a list of outstanding appeals to date.

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.