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

Councillor Carr declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4b) (26 Hob Moor Terrace) in that he was acquainted with the architect.

No other interests were declared.

To sign and approve the minutes of the last meeting of the Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 5 May 2016.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the last Area Planning Sub Committee held on 5 May 2016 be approved and then 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 Wednesday 8 June 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 .

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 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 existing hotel and outbuildings into 7no. residential units to include erection of new town house adjacent to no. 147 and demolition of extensions to rear of hotel with associated works including 3no.blocks of garages and alterations to car park and driveway to form access and individual gardens (resubmission) [Micklegate] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mount Vale Venture LLP for the conversion of an existing hotel and outbuildings into 7no. residential units to include the erection of a new town house adjacent to no. 147 and the demolition of extensions to the rear of the hotel together with associated works including 3no.blocks of garages and alterations to car park and driveway to form access and individual gardens (resubmission).

Officers gave an update to Members which included:

·        Two further representations had been received since the publication of the agenda, from the Ward Member and from a neighbour

·        Information had been received from the Public Protection Unit regarding the potential for land contamination meaning that this matter could be conditioned (Condition 19).

·        Full information had now been received on conditions that were previously in draft in the Officer’s report.

Representations in objection were received from Mike Nicholas a neighbour. He also provided a handout to Members which included photographs which included an overlay aspect of the proposed property with the current view. He stated that the property was close to his garden and felt that the proposed three storey building should be two storeys in height and there should be no windows in the gable. He also felt that any window in the gable should be obscured and fixed shut.

Further representations in objection were received from a local resident Daryl Goddard. He also spoke about the glazing of the windows on the northern elevation which overlooked his conservatory kitchen. He stated that although this was obscured, they overlooked and affected his privacy. He requested that the high windows be fixed and this be conditioned and the low windows be obscure glazed.

Representations in support were received from the agent Janet O’Neill. She spoke about the design of the proposed Newington Villa and residential amenity issues.

Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report, further information received in respect of land contamination, and those additional ones circulated at Committee;

2   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:-

Proposed Lower Ground Floor 3011/101 Rev.B, Proposed Second and Third Floor 3011/104 Rev.C and Proposed Building Sections 3011/107 Rev.B, dated April 2016;

Proposed Block Plan 3011/100 Rev.F, Proposed Ground Floor 3011/102 Rev.F, Proposed First Floor 3011/103 Rev.E, Proposed Site Elevations 3011/105 Rev.F, Proposed Newington Villa Elevations 3011/106 Rev.D and Proposed Coach House Elevations 3011/108 Rev.C, dated May 2016;

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority.

17     Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order), unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority the first and second floor windows in the north facing elevation of Newington Villa, the bathroom and landing windows in the north and east facing elevations of Coach House  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4a

Erection of detached two storey dwelling following demolition of bungalow [Dringhouses and Woodthorpe] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr Tim Shepherd for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling following the demolition of a bungalow.

One registration had been received to speak on this application which was withdrawn at the meeting.

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

Reason:   As the application accords with policies within the National Planning Policy Framework and the Draft Development Control Local Plan approved for development control purposes April 2005.

Roof extension to provide additional apartment [Guildhall] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from St Catherine’s Developments for a roof extension to provide an additional apartment.

Officers circulated an update which included detailed comments from the Conservation Architect in respect of Hilary House. This was republished with the agenda following the meeting.

In response to a question about residents parking, it was noted that this would not normally be required as the property was located in the city centre.

Representations in objection were received from Mark Fieldsend. He made reference to a previous application made in 2013 for a roof extension, which had not been approved. He questioned any change in circumstances that time which would allow the roof extension applied for. Whilst the existing building was appropriate to the period, he felt that the proposal was inappropriate would set a precedent.

Further representations in objection were received from Janet Cole. She requested that if the application was approved, that a number of conditions be attached to the permission;

·        including limiting working hours to 08.00-17.00 with no working at weekends or on Bank Holidays,

·        limiting noise and vibration in particular no beeping by reversing vehicles,

·        prohibiting obstructions in the common parts of the building and outside areas

·        providing that all repair, redecoration and cleaning necessitated by the works will be carried out promptly, to a good standard and at the expense of the developer. The common areas will be left clear, clean and tidy at weekends.

She spoke about how the parking plans presented were inaccurate,  in that there were nine parking spaces in the basement but there were eleven presented on the plans. She felt that if the application was approved, that there should be a revised plan.

Representations in support were received from the agent Janet O’Neill. She spoke about how although it was a dominant building on the skyline, it would not dominate the Minster. In addition, she reported that Historic England regarded the application as an enhancement to the Conservation Area. She felt that it would bring also benefits to the surrounding streetscape.

Some Members felt that the roof extension was inappropriate in the area. Others questioned whether the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) required the design of buildings to be distinctive or to respect the existing environment.

Councillor Craghill moved refusal and Councillor Looker seconded refusal on the grounds of the harmful impact that the application would have on the Central Historic Core Area, that it would detract from its setting and that the public benefits were not considered to outweigh the harm that the roof extension would bring.

Resolved: That the application be refused and that reasons for refusal be delegated to the Chair and Vice Chair, in conjunction with Officers.

Reason:   The host building is identified as a detractor in the Central Historic Core Conservation Area Appraisal; due to its scale and form it is out of character with the surrounding townscape. The proposals would amplify the level of harm the building has on the character and appearance of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4c

Mixed use development including erection of electrical retail store with associated workshop, storage and offices and a drive-thru restaurant [Huntington/New Earswick]

Members considered a full major application by Mr Chris Hale for a mixed use development including the erection of an electrical retail store with associated workshop, storage and offices and a drive thru restaurant.

Officers suggested that if Members were minded to approve the application that a number of highways conditions were required. In response to a Member’s question about construction hours, it was noted that this could be added as an informative.

Representations in support were received from the applicant, Chris Hale. He informed the committee that they had outgrown their existing premises and were looking to relocate to purpose built premises and that all employees would be relocated. In addition, the Foss Internal Drainage Board had given them permission to drain into their system. If the application was approved, the applicant would try to reduce the surface water drainage overall. He commented that the café would also provide jobs in the area.

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report, additional highways conditions and the additional informative regarding hours of construction.

Reason:   Members consider that the development represents sustainable development and is in principle supported by relevant policies in the NPPF.

Demolition of existing kennels, stables quarantine and cattery buildings, erection of 4no. detached dwellings with garages, and provision of new access road from existing driveway [Strensall] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application for the demolition of existing kennels, stables quarantine and cattery buildings, erection of 4 detached dwellings with garages, and provision of new access road from existing driveway.

Officers gave an update in which they informed Members that;

·        Planning permission and reserved matters had been granted in 1995 for 125 dwellings, a parish hall and sports facilities at Fosslands Farm on land to the south of the site.

·        The plan of the site had been incorrectly labelled, the cattery and quarantine buildings should be the other way round.

·        A further representation in support of the application had been received from Richard Watson.

The representation from Richard Watson had been circulated amongst Members at the meeting.

Representations in objection were received from Jacky Ridley. She felt that expansion of the buildings on the site was inappropriate, special circumstances had not been demonstrated for development on Green Belt land and there was substantial local objection against the plans. She felt that it should be refused on the grounds of Green Belt policy.

Representations in support were received from the applicants’ agent, Jennifer Hubbard. She informed the Committee about how the kennels were established before the houses were built nearby and the applicants had reduced the numbers of dogs that they kept on the site because of noise complaints.

If required the scheme could be reconfigured to make the courtyard development more open to replicate a rural agricultural development to minimise the impact on the green belt. She also felt in regards to surface water drainage that there was no use existed in this case for a further percolation test.

Representations were received from a representative of Earswick Parish Council, Pat Leveson. She informed Members that the  Parish Council were in support of the application. They felt there were special circumstances for development in the Green Belt in that the development would be built in a sympathetic style, a bat survey had been undertaken and the access road would include a turning circle for emergency vehicles.

Representations in support were received from the Ward Member, Councillor Doughty. He highlighted that the application would make a small contribution to York’s housing stock, the proposal was on brownfield land and the site was previously developed land. He felt there were very strong circumstances to approve the application.

Some Members felt that the application should be approved as they did not feel the development would impinge on the openness of the green belt and that there were very special circumstances in that the applicant would not be able to accept any more dogs at the kennels due to a noise abatement order which adversely affected the viability of the business. Other Members expressed concern that the Council’s Green Belt policy was not being followed. Members were informed that although the Foss Internal Drainage Board and Flood Risk Management Team had objected to the application in regards to a lack of information a condition could be added to any permission to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4e

Four-storey extension to provide 45no.additional bedrooms and reception area, alterations to parking areas [Micklegate] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full major application from Troy Management Services (Royal York) Ltd for a four storey extension to provide 45no. additional bedrooms.

In their update to Members, Officers stated that condition 2 regarding the submitted plans required amendment. A BREEAM very good rating condition also needed to be added if planning permission was granted. In regards to the hotel’s location in Flood Zone 3, this meant that bedrooms could not be located on the ground floor.

Some Members asked about the reduction of car parking spaces. Others asked about the visibility and design of the extension. They responded that the extension was a simple and elegant design which would not be prominent from the city walls.

Resolved: That the application be approved with the amended plans and a BREEAM condition, alongside the conditions listed in the Officer’s report.

Reason:   Having attached considerable importance and weight to the desirability of avoiding such harm it is concluded that the harm is outweighed by the application's public benefits of improving the conference facilities at this premium hotel and by the  new building having been carefully designed to complement the existing building group whilst maintaining the dominance, setting and garden aspect of the Victorian hotel building.  Important views would be preserved and some views, such as along the main access from Station Road and from the city walls, would be enhanced.