Local democracy during coronavirus

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates for more information on meetings and decisions.

Agenda and minutes

Venue: The George Hudson Board Room - 1st Floor West Offices (F045). View directions

Contact: Democratic Services 

Webcast: videorecording

Items
No. Item

97.

Site Visits

Minutes:

Application

Reason

In Attendance

Plot 1B, White Rose Close, Nether Poppleton

As objections had been received and the officer recommendation was to approve

Cllrs Boyce, Cullwick, Dew, Galvin, Hunter, Richardson and  Shepherd

HarewoodWhin, Tinker Lane, Rufforth

As objections had been received and the officer recommendation was to approve

Cllrs Boyce, Cullwick, Dew, Galvin, Hunter, Richardson and  Shepherd

York Racecourse

For Members to familiarise themselves with the site.

Cllrs Boyce, Cullwick, Dew, Galvin, Hunter, Richardson and  Shepherd

Former Fire Station

As objections had been received and the officer recommendation was to approve

Cllrs Boyce, Cullwick, Dew, Galvin, Hunter, Richardsonand  Shepherd

 

 

98.

Declarations of Interest

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.

 

 

Minutes:

At this point in the meeting, members were asked to declare any personal, prejudicial or pecuniary interests they may have in the business on the agenda.

 

Cllr D’Agorne declared a personal and prejudicial interest in relation to plans item 4f (Fire Station, 18 Clifford Street) as a city of York council representative on the Fire Authority. He left the room during discussion of this item and did not take part in the vote on this application.

 

Cllr Richardson declared personal and prejudicial interest in plans item 4d (Poppleton Garden Centre, Northfield Lane, Upper Poppleton) as a member of the Foss Internal Drainage Board. He also declared a personal and prejudicial interest in relation to plans item 4f (Fire Station, 18 Clifford Street) as a City of York Council representative and Vice Chair on the Fire Authority. He left the room during consideration of both items and did not take part in the vote on either application.

 

 

99.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 137 KB

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Thursday 21 April 2016.

 

Minutes:

Resolved:  That the minutes of the last meeting held on 21 April 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

100.

Public Participation

It is at this point in the meeting that members of the public who have registered their wish to speak can do so. The deadline for registering is by 5pm on Wednesday 11 May 2016. Members of the public can speak on specific planning applications or on other agenda items or matters within the remit of the committee.

 

To register please contact the Democracy Officers for the meeting, on the details at the foot of this agenda.

 

Filming or Recording Meetings

“Please note this meeting will be filmed and webcast and that includes any registered public speakers, who have given their permission.  This 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 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 https://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/file/6453/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_council_meetingspdf

Minutes:

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 Planning Committee.

 

101.

Plans List

This item invites Members to determine the following planning applications:

Minutes:

Members then considered the following reports of the Assistant Director (Development Services, Planning and Regeneration) relating to the following planning applications, which outlined the proposals and relevant planning considerations and set out the views of the consultees and officers.

 

102.

Yorwaste, Harewood Whin, Tinker Lane, Rufforth, York (16/00635/FUL) pdf icon PDF 27 KB

Variation of condition 1 (removal by 31 December 2017) of planning permission 12/01378/FUL for compost pad extension to allow retention and continued use until 31st December 2030.

[Rural West York Ward] [Site Visit]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a full application by Yorwaste Ltd for the variation of condition 1 (removal by 31 December 2017) of planning permission 12/01378/FUL for compost pad extension to allow retention and continued use until 31st December 2030.

 

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

 

Reason:         The existing composting pad has not exceeded its 70,000 tonne capacity during the period of operation and there has been no material change in planning circumstances over that period. The odour management plan has also been effective in dealing with the management of the composting process and any potential sources of nuisance.  The proposed retention of the compost pad would comply with the requirements of paragraph 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework and would not give rise to any harm to the open character of the Green Belt. As such the proposal is felt to be acceptable in Green Belt terms.

 

 

103.

Yorwaste, Harewood Whin, Tinker Lane, Rufforth, York (16/00357/FULM) pdf icon PDF 125 KB

Construction of a waste transfer station with associated ancillary buildings, hard-standings, car parking and alterations to access. [Rural West York Ward] [Site Visit]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a major full application by Yorwaste Ltd for the construction of a waste transfer station with associated ancillary buildings, hard-standings, car parking and alterations to access.

 

Officers advised that since the committee report had been prepared, a further 18 letters of representation had been received, objecting to the development if the proposed access alterations to the junction of Tinker Lane with the B1224 Wetherby Road were not carried out as envisaged; on the grounds of the significant impact upon the amenity of residents within Rufforth village caused by the passage of heavy goods vehicles associated with the site.

 

Highways Officers noted that a detailed Stage One Safety Audit had been submitted although further details were required by conditions to achieve a satisfactory solution in respect of the proposed junction improvements.

 

The Flood Risk Management Team had stated that having carried out an assessment of the submitted details it had no objections and was content that recommended Condition 20 would source proper drainage details.

 

Officers advised the committee that the applicant had asked for omission of condition 22 relating a BREAMM assessment and requiring a very good rating. The architect and a BREEAM Assessor stated that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to apply BREEAM to a Waste Transfer Station as many of the points did not apply, and those that did were largely covered by separate planning conditions.

 

Officers responded that it was recognised that the structure was effectively an enclosed, unlit and unheated space (similar to agricultural buildings that are exempt from Part L of the Building Regulations and not subject BREEAM assessment). Officers had therefore requested that a high-level completed BREEAM pre-estimator assessment be undertaken by a qualified assessor, to show what level (if any) can be achieved. This could not be undertaken prior to Committee, and so officers suggested that delegated authority be granted in respect of the amendment or deletion of the condition, depending on the outcome of the assessment condition. They therefore advised that the recommendation had been updated and they were now advising deferral of the scheme for completion of high level pre-estimator BREEAM assessment and completion of the 106 Agreement and then seeking delegated authority to grant permission with amended conditions from the highway authority and amended or deleted condition 22.

 

Mr P Rawlings, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning Group for Rufforth and  Knapton addressed the committee. He reminded members of the history of the site, He noted that Harewood Whin had been identified in both the Waste and Mineral Joint Plan and the draft local plan as a strategic site for waste management but reminded members that it was in the greenbelt and therefore inappropriate for development unless special circumstances could be proved. He advised members that the Neighbourhood and Planning Group had resolved to work with Yorwaste to reach a solution which met the strategic needs whilst minimising the effects on the community. He addressed the policies of the  emerging neighbourhood plan which set out certain criteria. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

104.

York Racecourse, Racecourse Road, Knavesmire, York, YO23 1EJ (15/02733/FUL) pdf icon PDF 102 KB

Construction of a single lane service road adjacent to racing surface. [Micklegate Ward] [Site Visit]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a full application by the Racecourse for the construction of a single lane service road adjacent to the racing surface.

 

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

 

Reason:         With regard to S72 and S66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the proposal does not cause any harm to either the adjacent Conservations Areas or the setting of listed buildings. The application site is within the general extent of the Green Belt. The proposal constitutes inappropriate development for the purposes of paragraph 88 of the NPPF, and by definition causes harm to the Green Belt. The road would result in harm to the openness and permanence of the Green Belt. Cumulatively the safety and recovery of riders and horses, the economic benefits to the city, the limited visual impact on the Knavesmire, the absence of any harm to the adjacent Conservation Areas and the absence of any harm to the setting of the listed building are considered to amount to 'very special circumstances' to clearly outweigh the definitional harm to the openness and permanence of the greenbelt and any other harm, even when substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt.

 

 

 

105.

Poppleton Garden Centre, Northfield Lane, Upper Poppleton, York, YO26 6QF (16/00878/FUL) pdf icon PDF 59 KB

Part use of car park as mobile storage unit for public use for bulk re sale or recycling of clothing, shoes and clothing accessories (retrospective). [Rural West York Ward]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a (retrospective) full application by Mr Ian Woods for the part use of the car park as a mobile storage unit for public use for bulk re sale or recycling of clothing, shoes and clothing accessories.

 

Officers advised the committee that there was an existing car wash and canopy adjacent to the proposed site, which did not have planning permission and was subject to a planning enforcement investigation.

 

Mr Ian Woods, the applicant, addressed the committee in support of the application. He advised that Smart Recycling allowed members of the public to recycle clothes for a cash reward. Employment would be provided for two people and would benefit York’s economy. He advised that the location was sustainable with the Park and Ride scheme opposite, which in itself was a prominent building, and an established garden centre and car park. He advised members that there had been no pubic objections to the proposals.

 

Members noted that officers found the proposals to be harmful to the greenbelt and that very special circumstances needed to be demonstrated which outweighed the harm caused to the greenbelt.

 

Members acknowledged that if the applicant wished to put forward proposals to move the storage unit to a less prominent position in the car park which was further away from the footpath and the A59 then this would need to be considered through a new application.

 

Members agreed that the proposals constituted inappropriate development in the greenbelt and that very special circumstances had not been shown to justify the proposals. They also agreed that the proposals would be unduly prominent and intrusive and would cause harm  to the visual amenity and open character of the area and the setting of the A59 transport corridor.

 

Resolved:      That delegated authority be given to the Assistant Director of Development Services, Planning and Regeneration (in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Committee) to refuse the application following the conclusion of the statutory consultation period, subject to no new material planning considerations being raised within any consultation responses during this period, due to end on 16 May 2016

 

Reason:         The proposal conflicts with the essential characteristics of Green Belts (their openness and their permanence) and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt by resulting in encroachment of development into the countryside, the sprawl, merging and coalescence of development; and is harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. The considerations put forward by the applicant do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm (harm to visual amenity and character of the A59 transport corridor) when substantial weight is given to the harm to the Green Belt. As such very special circumstances do not exist to justify the proposal. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy YH9 of the Yorkshire and Humber Plan and also conflict with Draft Development Control Local Plan (2005) policy GB1: Development in the Green Belt.

 

In addition  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

106.

Plot 1B - Call Centre, White Rose Close, Nether Poppleton, York (16/00179/FULM) pdf icon PDF 120 KB

Erection of motor vehicle dealership with associated vehicle parking and display. [Rural West York Ward] [Site Visit]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a major full application by Mr Andrew Hodgson for the erection of a motor vehicle dealership with associated vehicle parking and display.

 

Officers advised that since the committee report had been prepared, a revised site plan has been submitted to address the concerns of Yorkshire Water in respect of the required stand-off from the high pressure water main and surface water sewer crossing the site. It demonstrated that the required stand off from built development, fencing and landscaping would be achieved in respect of the proposed development. This was now felt to be acceptable. Officers advised that Condition 2 should therefore be amended to accommodate 539-07 Rev E accordingly. They advised that no further comment had been received from Yorkshire Water.

 

Officers advised that further detailed clarification had been received from the applicant indicating that the site has been continuously advertised since 2006 but that no interest has been forthcoming in terms of any form of employment related development of the site. Forward Planning therefore indicated that the requirements of Draft Local Plan Policy had therefore been met and that they raised no objection to the proposal.

 

One Member raised concerns about the impact on the local surface water drainage network, in response to the concerns raised by the Internal Drainage Board  in paragraph 4.10 with regard to increased water levels in the nearby water course. The council’s drainage officer responded to these concerns, advising that the applicant had provided a comprehensive drainage design including surface water attenuation, comprehensive flood risk/drainage assessments and proposals for the use of permeable paving and restricted discharge.

 

One Member requested that an electric charging point be provided, to be consistent with what is provided by most garages selling electric vehicles.  Mr Andrew Hodgson, the applicant, had registered to speak at the meeting. He advised members that he was happy for an electric charging point to be installed on the premises. 

 

Another Member suggested that that condition 5 (landscaping scheme) should be amended to require that landscaping scheme remained in place for the lifetime of the development rather than only 5 years as stated in the condition. This was supported by other members.

 

Resolved:      That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and the amendments to condition 2 (plans) and condition 5 (landscaping scheme).

 

Amended Condition 2

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

Drawing Refs:- 539-07E; SK001 P1; SK002 P1; 539-01; 539-02; 539-03; 539-04; 539-05; 539-06.

 

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

 

Amended Condition 5

No development shall take place until there has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a detailed landscaping scheme which shall illustrate the number, species, height and position of trees, shrubs and hard landscaping. This scheme shall be implemented within a period of six months of the completion of the development. Any trees or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

107.

Fire Station, 18 Clifford Street, York, YO1 9RD (15/02155/FULM) pdf icon PDF 283 KB

Demolition of buildings in the conservation area and building works to create 7no. dwellings and restaurant (Class A3) with 7 flats above. [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a major full application by Mr David Chapman (DC Architecture) for the demolition of buildings in the conservation area and building works to create 7 dwellings and a restaurant (Class A3) with 7 flats above.

 

Officers advised that the recommendation in the report “to approve subject to completion of a section 106 agreement”, was incorrect as the application did not have to be referred to the Secretary of State, despite the objection from Historic England.

 

They advised that an updated Archaeology Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) had been submitted which detailed the proposed mitigation & explained that the applicants would install a system which would collect and distribute rainwater to prevent water-logged deposits drying out.

 

A further objection from Historic England has been received dated 10.5.2016 advising that the application should be refused or deferred until the archaeology assessment (proposed in the WSI) had been conducted, the results understood & and the agreed mitigation strategy secured. Officers advised that the concerns Historic England had was that the heritage value of the archaeology that would be affected by the development was not yet fully understood.  If post development monitoring were to indicate that deposits were degrading,  then there was no proposal for excavation and, as such, the deposits would be lost

 

Officers advised that the following proposed additional conditions should be agreed if members were minded to approve the application:

 

·        Protection of Buildings to be retained

·        Exterior of ‘lodge’ to be recorded prior to demolition

·        DRAINAGE

o   Drainage

o   Surface Water Discharge

·        HIGHWAY MANAGEMENT

o   Removal of redundant crossings

o   Highway Improvement Works

o   HWAY31 – no mud on highway during construction

o   HWY40 – Dilapidation survey

·        Approved Plans

·        Cycle Parking

 

Officers advised that three further consultation responses had been received, from the conservation architect, Flood Risk Management Team and Highway Network Management,  details of which were  included  in the officer update which has been appended to the agenda papers. Officers provided a response in relation to the issues raised in these consultation responses.

 

The Conservation Architect had submitted comments in relation to the lodge building, chapel and school room and the Clifford Street Extension. Officers concluded that they supported the scheme overall acknowledging that a convincing justification had been provided for demolition of the lodge building.

 

The Flood Risk Management Team confirmed that they did not object to the proposals but had recommended imposing the conditions listed above.

 

Highway Network Management  requested a larger cycle store which was fit for purpose be required  and that the traffic regulation order included the removal of future residents from the local residents parking scheme. Additionally it was proposed that one car parking space be lost close to the junction with Clifford Street and that conditions be added to remove any redundant dropped kerbs/crossing and to agree a method of works.

 

Mr Ian Milsted, Project Manager at York Archaeological Trust,  addressed the committee. He provided members with a brief history of the site and advised that, to support the planning application, they had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

108.

Appeals Performance and Decision Summaries pdf icon PDF 107 KB

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. 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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 and provided them with a summary of the salient points from appeals determined in that period.

 

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.

 

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page