Agenda and minutes
Venue: The George Hudson Board Room - 1st Floor West Offices (F045). View directions
Contact: Catherine Clarke and Louise Cook
Webcast: video recording
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.
At this point in the meeting, members were asked to declare any personal, prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests that they might have in the business on the agenda. None were declared.
To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 5 November 2015.
Resolved: That the minutes of the Area Planning Sub Committee meeting held on 5 November be approved and 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 Officers on the contact details listed at the foot of this agenda. The deadline for registering is at 5.00pm on Wednesday 2 December 2015.
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 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
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.
Erection of 9no. dwellings with associated access and parking
[Acomb Ward] [Site Visit]
Members considered a full application from the Beckfield Lane Landowners for the erection of 9 dwellings with associated access and parking.
Officers advised that a unilateral undertaking had been received and was in the process of being checked by legal services. Their recommendation was that the application be approved subject to the completion of this unilateral undertaking, the sum covered in which would be spent on:
· £8416 to improve safety surfacing at Acomb Green Play Area
· £3775 towards Fishponds Wood for habitat development to improve amenity open space
· £5325 on pitch improvements at Carr Vikings sports pitches to increase playing capacity.
Following advice from the council’s archaeologist, officer stated that condition 10 had been altered as detailed below.
Highways have confirmed that they have no objections to the revised plans subject to standard conditions covering:
· The design and materials of adopted spaces
· Requiring the construction of carriageway and kerbs before occupation of the dwellings
· Full junction details to be approved
· Car parking spaces laid out and cycle storage facilities provided before occupation of the dwellings.
They also recommended two informatives covering requirements under highway adoption and a recommendation to contact utilities before starting on the site.
Officers also recommended a condition requiring the installation of an electric vehicle recharging point at each property as part of the council’s low emissions strategy.
Mr Parker, a local resident addressed the committee on behalf of residents of Runswick Avenue, in objection to the application and raised the following concerns:
· Loss of the garden space.
· Parking was already a problem in the area with people parking on double yellow lines and vehicles using Runswick Avenue daily to turn around in.
· There had been no discussion with regard to the issue of boundaries
· Need to consider privacy of residents
· If approved, stringent conditions needed to be attached to cover working hours and maintenance of the site.
Mr Nigel Ingram read out a statement on behalf of Jennifer Hubbard, Town Planning Consultant, who had been unable to attend the meeting, which put forward the following points:
· Though liaison with officers and other statutory consultees, plans had been substantially amended to introduce new planting, protect adjacent off site trees and retain onsite hedging as well as reducing areas given over to hard surfacing
· A bus stop outside the site on Beckfield Lane and nearby supermarket made it a highly sustainable site.
· The design of buildings had been improved and included a mix of dwelling types and sizes including bungalows. Density of development, space standards and garden sizes were all consistent with the character of the surrounding area.
· Happy to accept all proposed planning conditions.
With regard to paragraph 3.11 (response from Foss Internal Drainage Board) officers advised that they would seek authority to add a condition to cover surface and foul water drainage if members were minded to approve the application.
Some members expressed concern about the loss of green open space, noting its use as a green infrastructure corridor. They also noted that some fruit trees ... view the full minutes text for item 34a
Variation of condition 3 of planning permission 13/01960/OUT to increase the size on plan of the proposed dwelling and garage and relocate the proposed garage. [Osabaldwick and Derwent Ward] [Site Visit]
Members considered an outline application from Anna Craven for the variation of condition 3 of planning permission 13/01960/OUT to increase the size on plan of the proposed dwelling and garage and relocate the proposed garage.
Officers advised that at the committee site visit the previous day residents had sought clarification of certain aspects of the planning application. They provided the following responses to the queries which had raised.
· The location plan submitted with the application did not include the wooded area at the bottom (eastern end) of the garden. A corrected plan was submitted on 26 November.
· The application was for the erection of a single dwelling no higher than 4.5m above existing ground level.
· The reason the site plan for approval referred to finished floor levels which were below the existing ground level of the site was a drafting error by the applicant – all references to floor levels should have been removed. A revised plan (ref. 04 Rev.E) was submitted following the committee site visit. Officers recommend that condition 3 in the committee report be amended to replace 04 Rev.D with 04 Rev.E.
· This planning application was to vary condition 3 of a previous planning permission. A floor level condition was not attached to that consent so it would be unreasonable to add such a condition to the current application.
· With regard to the landscape proposals along the boundary with No.23, the applicant was confident in the accuracy of their topographical survey and that the dimensions noted in the original approval could be achieved.
· The garage (as amended during the progress of this application) was no larger than the garage that was approved in 2013.
Councillor Brooks addressed the committee as Ward Councillor for Osbaldwick and Derwent Ward. She expressed the following concerns:
· An increase in development would have a negative impact on the area
· Development on this site had been refused in the past or turned down at appeal.
· The increased size of the proposed property and not knowing exactly what they outline permission was for.
Mr Preece spoke on behalf of neighbouring private householders. He made the following points:
· The changes were unnecessary taking into account that it had taken several years to achieve the permission granted in 2014.
· The 18 sq ft increase could have a negative impact on the environment - the floor plan now appeared to be the same as the two storey original proposals which had been submitted previously and subsequently withdrawn.
· The occupier’s car headlights would impact on the residents of no 23 Garden Flats Lane as their car swung round in the drive.
Representations were then heard from Mr Mark Newby , the agent, in support of the application. He stated that:
· the applicant was not seeking to increase the height of the property nor to realign the access through the site, but instead to increase the size of the property to provide for a growing family and relocate the garage further away from the boundary with no 23.
Erection of 1no. dwelling with associated access and parking [Rural West York] [Site Visit]
Members considered a full application from Mrs Ray Leadley-Yoward for the erection of a dwelling with associated access and parking.
Officers advised that the committee report stated at paragraph 4.14 that the separation distance between the proposed dwelling and the host house at No.3 would be 24m. The actual distance would be 18m to the No.3’s main elevation and 15m to the conservatory. They explained that while these distances were below the council’s normal standards, overlooking would be avoided by the north-west facing windows on the upper floor of the proposed house being obscure glazed up to 1.7m high from floor level and this had been agreed by the applicant. Officers therefore recommended an additional condition requiring any upper floor window on the northern elevation to be obscure glazed and non opening.
Linda Manswell, a local resident, addressed the committee in objection to the application. She circulated a plan and some photographs to members and stated that:
· the proposed dwelling would have a negative effect on local amenity
· the local sewerage system may not be capable of supporting an additional property.
· the land had once been a gravel pit and the site had been deemed unsuitable for development.
· there may not be adequate parking for the property (the occupier of No 3 The Dell already parked on the road).
Councillor Joe Watt spoke on behalf of the immediate neighbour and as Chairman of Skelton Parish Council. He made the following points:
· Skelton was a rural community where gardens were a feature of village life, however the village had become vulnerable to the practice known as garden grabbing.
· Although a house could be squeezed into the garden, the remaining garden would be degraded for ever.
· The Dell and The Vale were special to residents. The village should not be spoilt for current and future residents by inappropriate development.
Officers drew Members attention to paragraph 4.6 which covered the development of gardens and paragraph 4.7 which covered design issues. In response to issues which had been raised by the first speaker, they confirmed that the foul water sewage pipe did not conflict with the location of the house and would not cause any problems. Furthermore officers had not raised any issues with subsidence. With regard to the character of area, this was mixed in terms of housing with the houses on The Vale quite close together and built of a variety of materials.
Some Members felt that this location was not large enough for the proposed dwelling. Due to the topography of the site, the garden was 1.5 to 2m below the level of the footpath which ran beside the property, therefore the house would be on different levels, and the distance between proposed dwelling and next door was less than expected. They expressed the view that, for these reasons, they felt the proposals would be detrimental to character and amenity of the local environment.
Councillor Gillies proposed and Councillor Carr seconded a motion to refuse the application on these grounds. On ... view the full minutes text for item 34c
Change of use from retail (use class A1) to mixed use retail with cycle repair facilities, cafe/restaurant and drinking establishment (use class A1/A3/A4) with 1no additional flat on first floor (use class C3) [Micklegate Ward] [Site Visit]
Members considered a full application from Mr Terence Ashton for the change of use from retail (use class A1) to mixed use retail with cycle repair facilities, café/restaurant and drinking establishment (use class A1/A3/A4) with one additional flat on the first floor (use class C3).
Members questioned whether there was a potential for disturbance within the forecourt seating area if tables and chairs were left out once this area had closed. They also raised the issue of the toilet facilities being located close to the adjacent property and the effect in respect of smells, noise and privacy on the neighbouring property and officers responded to these issues.
Laura Moynihan, a neighbour, spoke in objection to the application on behalf of all those residents who had objected, a number of whom lived on Darnborough Street. She expressed the following concerns:
· The position of the toilets raised issues of privacy - from her property she could see directly into the skylights of the toilets and therefore customers using the facilities would also be able to see into her property.
· The toilets would vent into the alleyway. Work had already been undertaken to alleviate damp, additional vents could exacerbate this problem.
· Use of the outdoor seating area could cause noise and disturbance to residents in Darnborough Street.
· Darnborough Street was a narrow road with parking on one side – the proposals could lead to an increase in traffic on this road.
Mr Peter Kilbane, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He advised that:
· he had set up many local communities initiatives and would use his experience and skills to set up a viable business.
· the proposals would allow Cycle Heaven to keep a presence on Bishopthorpe Road and would create a meeting place for local community.
· he had consulted with neighbours in writing and at meetings regarding the proposals.
Mr Shrimpton, managing director of Cycle Heaven, owner of the property and partner in this enterprise also addressed the committee in support of the application. He advised that:
· he was passionately committed to the neighbourhood. He had organised the first street party 5 years ago, set up the website Bishyroad.net which led to the founding of the traders association.
· cafés had altered the culture of Bishopthorpe Road. None of the local pubs offered food, other cafés were closed in the evening and restaurants only served full meals.
· the proposals would incorporate cycle workshop, cycle accessory retail and cafe. The cycle café formula was a tried and tested business model and would allow Cycle Heaven to remain in street.
Members offered their support for the proposals which they felt would bring something new to the street and enhance what was already a good area. They felt that the development has been well thought out with consideration given to residents.
To address the concerns about the potential for disturbance outside once the customer seating area has been closed to customer, members agreed that condition 6 should be amended to require the owners to remove ... view the full minutes text for item 34d
Erection of three-storey teaching building following demolition of existing Student Union building. [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]
Members considered a major full application (13 weeks) from York St John University for the erection of a three-storey teaching building following the demolition of the existing student union building.
Officer recommended an additional condition to cover the requirement to submit BREEAM assessments during the development.
They also advised that the applicant had provided an additional section drawing which provided additional clarity in respect to the site sections when viewed from the city walls. Therefore the relevant site sections drawing referred to in condition 2 (3895-016 PL11 B) should be updated.
Officers advised that two further letters of objection had been received. The occupier of 56 St John Street has objected to the scheme for neighbour amenity concerns similar to those already summarised in the officer’s report.
A resident in Penleys Grove Street had objected expressing concerns in respect to the scale and form of the proposed building and its negative impact on the listed Quad and Chapel. The objector considered that the building was one storey too tall, that its roof line lacked interest and that its design and use of materials was not in character with nearby buildings and trees.
Sarah Davey, a resident of St John Street, addressed the committee on behalf of her immediate neighbour. She expressed the following views:
· The 3 storey building would tower above any other building, including the houses on St John Street. It would cut out light to these houses, especially to the ground floors.
· The building would be made even higher by a 6ft concrete wall on top to hide the plant machinery. This would be seen from her 3rd floor bedroom.
· She questioned why the plant could not be located the other side of the building away from the houses to avoid noise pollution affecting residents.
· Views of the Minster would be obliterated from the local area
Mr David Chesser, Chief Operating Officer at York St John University, addressed Member in support of the application stating:
· student numbers had increased by nearly 1000 in the last 5 years, bringing benefits the university and York’s economy. A lot of investment had been made in the University’s sites, however there was still a shortfall in teaching space and a need to be able to offer modern and flexible teaching accommodation in order to remain competitive and attract students.
· the proposed 3 storey building would provide 16 teaching rooms, IT suites, social learning spaces and study zones
· he recognised the sensitivity of the site, understood the concerns raised but believed they could be overcome
· they had engaged in consultation including a public exhibition held for local residents in July but attendance had been limited.
· modifications had been made to the scheme and proposals were a successful balance which met the needs of the university while taking into account of the sensitivity and restrictions of the site – proposals complied with national and local planning policy.
Members noted the concerns raised with regard to the location of the plant machinery and questioned ... view the full minutes text for item 34e
Variation of condition 22 of permitted application 09/02284/FULM to alter opening hours to between 07.00- 22.00 Monday to Saturday and 10.00 to 19.00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. [Westfield Ward] [Site Visit]
Members considered a major full application (13 weeks) for the variation of condition 22 of permitted application 09/02284/FULM to alter opening hours to between 07.00 – 22.00 Monday to Saturday and 10.00 to 19.00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Howard Perry, a resident of St James Place, addressed the committee in objection to the application on the grounds of noise and light pollution. He circulated some photographs which showed vehicles parked in the area and raised the following concerns:
· Extending the opening hours would cause more disruption to the quiet cul-de-sac by increasing the length of time residents were likely to be disturbed by the noise of lorries delivering to the premises.
· Light pollution would be increased as car park lights, which shone into the bedroom and living room of his first floor flat, would be on for longer.
· If the application was approved, a condition was required to limit times for deliveries and for operation of lights and illuminated signage.
Nick Scott, the agent for Lidl, addressed the committee. He made the following points:
· None of the consultees had found any material reason to object to the variation of the condition.
· The officer’s report addressed the objectors’ points regarding noise from deliveries and customer vehicles, and light pollution from car park lights, illuminated signs and vehicle lights.
· The request to control timing of deliveries and organisation of deliveries was a separate matter and is immaterial to this application.
· The hours applied for had been subsequently amended to comply with Sunday trading laws following liaison with officers.
Members noted that the application for longer hours would bring this store in line nationally with other Lidl stores and that the store would continue to open for 6 hours on a Sunday between the hours applied for, in line with Sunday trading laws. They did not feel that the extra hour of opening would make much difference in the area. While they acknowledged that some of the parking shown in the photos was not related to the store, the ward member agreed to contact Network Management team about parking on St James Place as this was outside the application site.
Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report.
Reason: It is considered that the proposal complies with national guidance in the NPPF, Development Control Local Plan Policies and would not result in harm to the residential amenity of the occupants of the nearby dwellings.
Single storey rear extension and rooflights to side of The Coach House. [Fulford and Heslington Ward]
Members considered a full application from Mrs Sarah Urmston for a single storey rear extension and roof lights to the side of The Coach House.
Officers advised committee members that Fulford Parish Council had responded to the consultation and confirmed they had had no objections to the original application and believed that the amendments made the extension further subservient to the overall design therefore did not have any objections to this application.
With regard to the proposed recommendation, officers advised that as the consultation period had not yet ended, the officer recommendation should be that Members grant delegated authority to them to refuse the application at the end of the publicity period, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair should any further representations be received.
Mr Steven Urmston, the applicant, addressed the committee in support of the application. He made the following statement:
· He and his wife were committed to achieving a high quality design which was why they had chosen to use an architect and submit a planning application rather than choosing to extend under permitted development rights.
· They needed more space as they lived as an extended family with their children and mother.
· With regard to public views of the property, only the east side of the property bordered public space and the proposed extension was orientated to face west away from the road.
Mr Joel Smith, the architect, also addressed the committee. He advised members that:
· The proposed extension would only be 2.5m2 larger than permitted development would allow
· It would not be possible to introduce different types of design without being extremely pastiche or damaging scale.
· The glass link was important as it detached the new part of the house from the existing property.
· Planning officers felt existing open space in area would be compromised slightly by design but it only added 1% to overall built form, still less than 20% of that open area.
Members noted that the glazed break physically linked but separated the extension from the host building which was an accepted architectural feature. They felt it would have been impossible to extend in any other way apart from this, the only other option being to build in same style which would be considered pastiche. They felt that the chosen materials were sympathetic to the host building, Members noted that in Fulford there was already a mix of property styles and building materials and that no objections had been received from Fulford Parish Council. They did not feel there was any reason to refuse the application.
Resolved: That delegated authority be given to officers to approve the application at the end of the publicity period, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair should further representations be received.
Reason: The contemporary design of the extension using appropriate materials would not harm the appearance of the host dwelling and would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal was therefore in line with the built heritage policies of the NPPF ... view the full minutes text for item 34g
Erection of two storey building to rear to be used as a House in Multiple Occupation (use Class C4) [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]
Members considered a full application from Miss Anita Sharma for the erection of a two storey building to the rear of 38 Clarence Street to be used as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO).
Bronwen Pope-Wilby, resident of Aldbrough House, addressed members on behalf of her neighbours. She expressed the following views:
· This was overdevelopment
· Brook Street was a tiny street with 2 new houses having been built in gardens in the last 2 years with another one in the process of being built as well as this application. This would double the number of people in the street by about 17-18 people.
· Its use as an HMO aimed at student housing, could lead to an increase in noise, parking and rubbish.
The applicant, and occupier of 38 Clarence Street, spoke in support of the application. She made the following points:
· The greatest impact would be on her own property not her neighbours’ properties.
· Her garden didn’t get any light and she has two parking spaces at the back of her property which she has let other people use as she didn’t use herself.
· With regards to the impact of traffic, in the past City of York Council had owned the car park with access via Brook Street. This car park was now owned by the university but Brook Street was no longer used for access, therefore there was less traffic in the road.
Members noted that there was already a lot of pressure on Brook Street, which was a small narrow road. They considered whether one additional property would make a difference and whether this constituted overdevelopment. Members felt that it could improve the frontage of this site onto Brook Street and welcomed the fact the applicant was applying for HMO use at this stage rather than at a later date.
Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report.
Reason: It is considered that the works are acceptable and would not result in any detrimental impact upon neighbouring amenity or the character and appearance of the area. The works would not harm the setting of the listed building and therefore comply with Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and with national guidance on good design contained within the NPPF, Policy GP1, GP10 (criterion a and e), HE2 and H4a of the 2005 City of York draft Development Control Local Plan.
Demolition of the existing curtilage building and the erection of two storey building [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]
Members considered an application for listed building consent from Miss Anita Sharma for the demolition of the existing curtilage building and the erection of a two storey building.
Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report.
Reason: It is considered that the demolition of the existing curtilage structure and the erection of the new dwelling would not result in harm to the special interest of the building or its setting. The application therefore accords with Section 16 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, advice contained within paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy H4 of the draft Development Control Local Plan.