AGENDA
1. Declarations of Interest – 04:41
2. Minutes – 05:23
4. Plans List – 05:44
a) 100 Main Street Fulford York YO10 4PS [23/01234/FUL] – 05:46
b) Fulford Flood Alleviation Scheme, Pt Fulford Ings And Pt Playing Fields, Selby Road, York [23/00283/FUL] – 01:08:18
c) Tramways Club, 1 Mill Street, York, YO1 9PY [21/01045/FULM] – 02:31:05
d) Planning Appeal Performance and Decisions – 03:33:01
5. Urgent Business – 03:36:55
For full agenda, attendance details and supporting documents visit:
https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1028&MId=14139
Will uh we still R it yeah okay we’ll um we’ll we’ll make a start there so welcome to everyone who’s joined us um we’ve got quite a few uh members of public with us today so for a bit of housekeeping uh Pilots s to the rear we’ll take a break in between items
Shortly for people to be able to leave uh in between different plan items uh if there’s any fire alarms that go off please just make your way to the exits and follow us elves to those um and can remind people to turn their phones on silent for the course of the meeting um
Just to run you through uh how it work we get to each item we’ll be initially discussing and voting on the officer recommendation is laid out in the report so that you can understand that and uh there will also be a section on public participation um which a number of you
Will be here for uh when you come up to speak um just take a seat and start speaking when you’re ready and you’ll have three minutes from when you start speaking at that time um when you finish speaking if you can just stay seated because members of the committee you’ll
Have chance to ask you questions at that time so I’ll just let you know um when you can return to your seat after that um otherwise I think that covers everything uh the first I we have is just uh Declarations of Interest we don’t have any substitutes today so
We’ll move to that so anyone have any interest they want to declare for the meeting yeah councelor Melly please thank you chair uh yes I am predetermined on item 4 C in that I have uh with my ward colleague submit an objection um urging refusal so I won’t
Take part in that agenda item yeah thank you and councelor Clark thanks chair uh yeah similarly to councelor Melly and predetermined on four C due to our objection that we submitted for the application of course thank you he say out for that one yeah right thank you um
In that case uh I don’t see any of declarations so we’ll move on to first item which is the minutes we have uh minutes from the last two committees um we’ll just take them both together does anyone have any comments on those minutes that were circulated no in that case we’ll take
That sign that those are approved and we’ll move forward um we’ll move on to the first uh believe the first agenda item which is uh item 40100 Main Street in fulford um joined by G Arnold development manager and Natalie Ramadan as the development management officer F can you take
Presentation please okay thank you uh chair item 4 a uh relates to site 100 102 Main Street fford uh this is a uh two residential houses to the front and a commercial building to the rear just on the Google image so the site is roughly outlined as as shown on on the image
Behind just another P from the south extent of the the property with it with its access to the south side of the site SES in the conservation area um the conservation area appraisal lists that uh 100 um is a site of positive value in the conservation area 102
Neutral and uh the the buildings to the to the rear the former commercial buildings and the additions to the rear of those Residential Properties are considered to be dra detractors in the conservation area just some more photographs Fe so from Main Street closeup of um 100 then 102 buildings to the
Rear and then the rear of 100 and 102 and that’s the access into um properties to the to the rear of the site will utilize the the same access of this scheme to Main Street so the existing site plan and the existing ground floor plan first floor plan and then the existing
Elevations and then the elevations of the out building it’s the demolition plan so a general site demolition ground floor demolitions first floor demolitions and is the proposed site plan so 100 and 102 will be converted into four houses uh the there’s also alterations to the roof uh including a hip to Gable
And rear Dormers and a rear extension uh with um a roof Terrace above that for each individual each of those four properties and the commercial building following its demolition replaced with a dwelling which provides some car parking for the for the wider site underneath part of it so ground floor you see that
Conversion into four separate dwellings there the parking area and the ground floor of um the the the new building first floor with the external Terrace above that extended ground floor rear area each of them has small courtyard elevations so this is the elevation of the uh the the new building
To the rear the new dwelling to the rear it’s rear or Western elevation and the north elevation proposed elevations of the of 101 102 as converted then at the rear see the the ground floor extension First Floor Terrace and then the uh the proposed Dormers and the recall from the existing
Elevation so this is now altered to to a hip to Cable design on 102 yeah that’s it um again for for members information you recall that the application was uh deferred from the uh from the agenda on the 10th of October um because of issues with the
Uh with the B survey that have been submitted and uh is now represented back to you uh for determination oh we do have an update Nat we can run through very briefly thank you so in terms of updates on this one at paragraph 1.7 in the public report um this needs to be
Updated as the decision um for the previous application on this site has now been quashed um by decision of the court and is now back with the local plan Authority for redetermination we received an additional representation on the 8th of January on ecological grounds and the
Details of um of those are set out within your update sheets and um so it’s on ecological grounds and also um at the end of the representation the objector also notes that um other features of the scheme as highlighted by the parish council would also justify refusal and we’ we’ve
Assessed the additional information and we still recommend approval subject to the conditions as set out within the report thank you thank you um for all of it or the second part just s nearly all of it okay um uh no we’ll U we’ll we’ll speak up for the remainder of the meeting sorry
Um okay um we the the second update part yes yeah can you just repeat that yeah so in terms of an update on 100 Main Street application and paragraph 1.7 in the public reports this needs to be updated as the decision on the previous application on this site
Has been quashed by um a decision of the court and is now back with the local planning Authority for redetermination we have received an additional representation for this application on the 8th of January which objected to the application on ecological grounds and also highlighted um that other the features of the scheme
But as highlighted by the parish council would also justify refusal um we’ve assessed the additional information and the officer’s recommendation Still Remains for approval subject to conditions set out within the report thank you um I’ll just ask at this time ifes anyone have any clar questions clarifications on the plans
Themselves um Council award please probably jumped in too quick not actually on the plans themselves more on this update okay as the previous decision was challenged with judicial review and was quashed it does concern me to to read through that additional representation which seems to be threatening similar
Action and saying that um the approach taken as regards these B surveys and conditions is unlawful can we have some legal advice before we go any further with this thanks we’re just being joined by Ellena sleet who is the senior ecologist for the council hi everyone um can everyone hear
Me at back yeah okay can you can you hear me okay good good um so in 2022 bats were single bat was identified within the out building um coming out of the East Elevation and um so obviously that will require a natural England European protected species license before any additional work can go
Forward um the license effectively if granted by Natural England allows you to work outside the law so that’s a wildlife and Countryside act um so obviously we we’ write that into the planning condition we have a planning condition saying that a license is required before any demolition works are undertaken within that license
Application it’s a package of information that the ecologist provides and sets out a system of mitigation um so that yeah that would have been conditioned um based on that that 2022 information when the application was resubmitted 202 three uh we just asked for an update of the status of the site
To make sure that that that kind of Baseline data was was was still applicable but effectively we’d still have the same condition for the European protected species license because as as as soon as you identify a roost it’s legally protected under the wildlife Countryside act and it’s natural
England’s decision to decide whether to grant that license so that that’s where we are at the moment we’ve got we’re going to have a condition for the provision of the the European protected species license and that will stipulate that no demolition work can take place
In any any part of the site until the license has been approved by and granted by Natural England and and shown to us and we we’ve seen that that that license has been issued yeah and and just to add to that Council um we have to look at each uh
Application individually so even though the decision’s been made on the the other one um we have to do the same that was the advice been given it’s the same process essentially for each one so it’s just yeah thank you that first um the first application uh there were three grounds
Uh under which it was uh question we um The Authority agreed with with those three grounds but not the other grounds that were put forward by the uh uh by the claimant uh in terms of the uh ecology issues the issue there was we hadn’t imposed the condition whereas through the the package
Of um in the agenda you’ll see the conditions are imposed uh you’ll see the advice of uh of senior um ecologist and you’ve you’ve received the advice verbally just then so we’re confident that the the issues are covered this time around uh councelor Millie um thank you
Chair I was just wondering if could please look more closely at the parking Arrangements it’s just difficult to see it on this plan could would you mind zooming in a bit I think there’s five car parking spaces provided there’s four together at the top of the plan and then is there
One separately in front of the fifth dwelling I think on the site visits there was some concerns about how close that was to the access to that delling if allowed you know an accessible one two three four five yeah so does that does that leave enough
Space to be able to get in and out of car doors and then out of the front door of that dwelling and that sort of thing there was a question about it raised at the site visits I think yeah um the car parking space is a
5 by 2.7 which is a standard car parking space um in terms of the the one below um 102c which is separate dwelling there is 300 M either side which we consider sufficient thanks um can’t see any of the questions at this time so I’ll um I’ll move into
Public participation um the first speaker is maryon please uh from the parish council speaking objection if you can chin thank you chair um so I’m speaking on behalf of the parish council and we would like to see this site redeveloped but there are many reasons why we believe this scheme should be
Refused our most recent objections are well set out at 3.14 of your report but most have not been addressed the two semi- detached dwellings at the front will be largely demolished including much of the exterior building Fabric and everything inside this is regrettable because one of these buildings is a non-designated Heritage
Asset in addition the subdivision of the two buildings into four separate units will cause irreversible harm to their character especially at the rear where four huge Dormers will dominate the roof gate even though the rear of the site isn’t all visible from Main Street I do recall G’s advice at a previous meeting
Where he EMP emphasize that it’s the impact on the conservation area as a whole that needs to be considered not and not only whether development is visible in public view most of this Heritage harm could be avoided by retaining the two semi- detached buildings with a reduction in the scale of the rear
Extension regarding accessibility local pan policy T1 states that all development should be fully accessible to all groups within the community we’ve set out many reasons why the access is unsuitable and we’ve pointed out that the only access to three of the properties is from the rear Courtyard so
These occupants have no other option than to use the drive at all times the fact that larger Vehicles can’t access the Courtyard at all means that even removal Vans would need to find a space to park along Main Street and then somehow carry fridges freezers and Furniture up the access drive and
Through the courtyard this would be unworkable in practice uh we ask for an equality impact assessment to be carried out but this seems to have been ignored even though the driveway isn’t adopted policy T1 requires development to demonstrate safe and appropriate access to the adjacent adopted Highway
And the conflict with this policy is another reason that would justify a refusal regarding the drainage we’re very concerned that the flood risk officer hasn’t commented and we question whether the suitability of the strategy has been properly evaluated and whether the calculations and other details are even correct furthermore the strategy is
Entirely based on a much earlier layout plan which has since been revised several times we therefore question whether condition 19 would be effective or enforcable when the drainage is clearly based on an out ofd plan finally we don’t believe that the bat surveys have been properly updated to satisfy Natural England requirements
That survey information should be of sufficient quality for you to be confident that a license will be granted that’s uh three minutes thank you okay so I could go into the bats a bit more but um we hope you’ll refuse it thank you very much um B anyone have any
Questions sorry councilor Melly thank you chair could you please tell us more about the bats well I’m not a an ecologist I’m not as qualified as Ellena for instance but I do think that you your statutory duty is to consider the derogation tests in order to Grant planning permission because Natural England need
Need to issue a license to to to to destroy the the bat Roo and um I think it’s all set out in the update I my comments to um so they they say that their standing advice says that adequate survey information is required before the application can be
Determined so so that you can assess whether Natural England W will actually issue a license and Natural England their their advice is that they require full full survey advice before they will consider an a license and the the the advice hadn’t been updated they did a an evening survey where they discovered this
B exiting the building but they’ve never been back to to do and that’s out of date now they should have updated that what the what the ecologist did was he came back and he did a well there’s no evidence to show that he actually went in the building there one photo of one
Of the roof spaces so and he only he only looked at the buildings he didn’t do any actual surveys so in that respect we don’t believe that the information has been adequately updated I’m sorry I haven’t explained that very well no thank you um I can’t
See any of the questions at this time so if he wants to take to see you again uh the the next speaker is councelor Kate ravilious who’s the W counselor fulford she can’t be here today so she’s provided a statement which I will read out on her behalf um
On the it I won’t TI myself I’ll just go ahead uh people are living longer lives and the proportion of older people in the population is increasing ensuring that our housing stock is appropriate for people with disabilities is a crucial part of planning for this demographic change and ensuring that
People can live safe and independent lives the last census found that nearly one quarter of fulford’s population is over the age of 65 and the ward profile states that just over 17% of residents have some limitation in their day-to-day activities paragraph 96 of the mppf says that planning decisions should aim to
Achieve healthy inclusive and safe spaces and beautiful buildings which a promote social interaction b a safe and accessible and see enable and support Healthy Lifestyles nppf 1112 says that applications for development should a give Priority First to pedestrian cycle movements B address the needs of people with disabilities C create places that
Are safe secure and attractive which minimize scope for conflict between pedestrians cyclists and vehicles and allow for the efficient delivery of goods and access by service and emergency vehicles the access and parking arrangements for the proposed development fail both of these mppf tests and completely failed to even to
Meet even the most basic level of the nationally described space standard for visitable dwellings the sketch illustrating the parking Dimension shows that the entrance to each per Terrace areas are between 92 m is a 910 millim wide where is Section 1 a paragraph 1.6d of the building regulations for the ACT
Access to and use of buildings so that where a driveway forms all or part of the approach route the approach route must be at least 8 100 millimeters wide so that a wheelchair user can pass a car parked car the tracking diagrams for the proposed development demonstrate how
Hostile this environment will be to pedestrians and wheelchair users with the entire Courtyard area required for vehicles to turn around and no safe route for residents or visitors to walk or wheel and reach the front doors of the dwellings this does not promote social interaction it is not safe and
Accessible and it doesn’t enable and support Healthy Lifestyles it also fails to apply the council’s transport hierarchy where pedestrians are given priority over other modes of Transport something that has been a part of La York’s local transport plan for decades meanwhile the tracking diagrams also show that delivery vehicles will be
Unable to turn on site and instead the expectation is that delivery vehicles will park on Main Street adding to the already significant parking pressure and Tra deliveries around to the Courtyard I very keen to see these buildings developed they have sat empty for far too long and could provide much
Needed homes but I cannot support the proposed access Arrangements associated with these plans there are R Transport Solutions this development is situated near to a bus stop of a good bus service there are car club Vehicles not far away and many residents in this area in the
City regularly cycle the two miles to diseas Center I would like to see some more creative thinking about the access to these properties and encourage the committee to find a way to achieve this um I’ll move on to the final speaker which is uh lee Vincent if Lee
Would like to come up uh speaking in support in application you can just check that the microphone’s on with the green light showing can yes is that working yes thank you very much um you’ve got three minutes just start when you’re ready you thank you very much much uh good
Afternoon chair and members of the committee and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address you today the site we’re discussing has long languished in a state of disrepair and today we come before you with a proposal that seeks to Breathe new life into this neglected space our application puts forth plans
For five smaller dwellings designed to align with a sustainable location and to minimize any impact on the broader Conservation Area these proposed properties in terms of size mirror the majority of residences along Main Street as highlighted by officers in the committee report an application was initially submitted in November 22 and
Received approval in March 23 however this decision underwent a review leading to the realization that certain conditions should have been attached to the original approval specifically addressing drainage archaeology and ecology this process has taken a substantial 10 months to resolve and it’s crucial to note that the applicant had always been committed to
Meeting the technical requirements associated these conditions and the costs imposed by them are minimal compared to the considerable delay incurred as’s a small local residential developer this protracted process has proven frustrating as a site should have been developed and homes occupied if not for the overturning of the original decision on a
Technicality the existing structures on the site are in a deplorable state with buildings at the rear deemed so unsafe that they are uninsurable our proposal seeks to rejuvenate the front buildings bringing them back into use while responsibly replacing the unsafe structures with a sustainable new home to the rear collaborating closely with officers
We’ve taken measures to minimize the impact on the conservation area resulting in little change to the street scene importantly the proposed development maintains the existing Mass on the site and in fact brings about an overall reduction with a revised layout that includes residential immunity spaces as well as adequate cycle and
Bing storage and Resident parking a noteworthy issue on the existing site is lack of proper parking facilities with the hard standing to the rear proving insufficient for parking and also turning around this forces any vehicles that enter the site to reverse onto Main Street causing safety concerns our proposed design addresses this concern
By providing on-site resident parking with a layout that allows residents to enter and exit the site in a forward gear eliminate the need to reverse onto Main Street larger Vehicles will service the site from roadside this is a well established practice with over a 100 properties on Main Street currently
Being serviced in this way with no issue on on site turning for larg of vehicles just isn’t possible and would compromise parking and Immunity at the rear to an unworkable level in conclusion our proposals aim to revitalize this derel and vacant site providing much needed homes in a sustainable location we
Politely request that members agree with officer recommendation to approve this time with the appropriate conditions attached thanks for your time and I’m available to answer any questions that you might have thank you um does anyone have any questions uh for the agent yeah Council please thanks chair um just it’s been
Raised in a couple of the um previous speakers about accessibility particularly how the properties will be accessed from the rear how dangerous potentially that is uh I just wondering what and basically people walking or cycling from the back to the pron along that road there just what are your
Thoughts I mean has much thought been put into how access of pedestrians and Cy well I mean the access is 6 MERS wide existing um and the road surface is 3.6 MERS and there is a sort of just over a meter either side uh to uh to be able to
I think the 1.2 meters on the right we’re assuming would be used by pedestrians uh and the meter to the left would be used to present uh bins and U and the like on on bind day um I mean it is a difficult one because it’s an
Existing site at the end of the day that we’re we’re trying to work with as be as best we can I think the the existing access the front door the front uh is is a stepped approach as as it stands uh and so the going via the ramp or the
Road the access existing access to the rear we can provide then level access to all all of the properties and obviously uh you can exit your vehicles and Prov provide level access to all five properties from that from that Central uh Central Courtyard I mean that’s that’s we’ve look we’ve been we’ve been
Through it with with the our approved inspector and building control we we’ve tried to create as much of a Improvement as is possible but when you’re working with a you know a tight site that’s um that’s got existing constraints you know we we we’ve tried to do as much as we
Can to to improve you accessibility ultimately um but that’s probably about as much as I can say yeah thank you um yeah councelor Bassie please thank you CH it’s just a quick question my understanding is this was a dairy once a long time ago yeah how did
Vehicles go in and come out then because I can’t believe they were reversing out on for Main Street well I make me look like I’ve been around a while but I’m not I’ll be honest I’m not sure uh how how how it was I mean I think historically the site’s been developed
So so C oswal’s court next door uh was probably developed in the late 20th century which I’m sure was form part of the wider of The Wider site historically but I think there’s always been an issue with vehicles pulling onto site and reversing offsite but I’ll be honest as
Far as I can remember uh and I’ve been living in the city for a fair fair amount of time I think the the houses to the front and the out buildings to the rear uh have been used on a sort of lower level rather than necessarily on
Commercial on a commercial scale I I think there was also a bungalow built in the rear which may have also form part of the dairy uh facility uh going back a number of years but yeah so I’m not entirely sure I’m afraid okay thank you thank you um I don’t see any other
Questions so if you want like to see you again thanks we’ll move does before we move into discussion does there have any further questions for uh offices at this time um I just have what just some clarification about do we have dimensions for the for the access just
Because um seems to be a bit of discrepancy between um some speakers and yeah in while we’re getting that measured councelor Melly have a question please um thanks chair another question about the plans I was just wondering if you could um show us where the cycle storage is please
I can’t magnify the slide and use a pointer at the same time so uh yeah use my hand so that the S are one two 3 4 and then an integral one in the dwelling so they all covered uh yes but there is a condition I’m not sure we’ve got an elevation of
Them but there is a so there is conditions it’s condition 14 it just says it needs to be installed uh in accordance with the plans sorry they have a door uh You’ expect them to have a roof uh if members are want us really to EMB braces it roof and door it then
Um we could we could amend that condition to to make that clear but I’m pretty sure that’s the that is the intention yeah so in terms of Dimensions um just want to show on the with the pointer From the Terrace um so From the Terrace here cross there it’s approximately 5
M and then the access point here is approximately 3.7 met so 3.7 and five there is that okay that’s great thank you okay um don’t see any other questions at this time um oh councilor Bassy please thank you chair yes just pick up the um points we’ve had made by the
Speakers uh there seems to be some kind of some conflict between paragraph 1.3 which talks about what and will not be demolished um is it paragraph Yes demolition of extensions in that buildings can you confirm please what is being proposed here from the draw ings it looks like the ground floor of
Numbers 101 102 remain the same and the first floor will be transformed does that require demolishing does it require retaining the bricks I’m not I’m I’m not clear in my own mind as to whether these buildings are being demolished or not a demolition plan on the on the on the board on the
Screen rather uh so the areas in red uh are the areas to be demolished so that’s uh ground floor so the entirety of the um what we call the former commercial building and then the the additions to the rear and then at ground floor level uh the rear walls and the
Internals of of the uh number 100 102 first floor again it’s the the entirety of the inside but the uh areas of the first FL rear wall are being retained and then I think at roof level it’s uh in terms of the roof it’s the
The area of the hip to Gable so the internals of the building will be uh entirely uh removed and then we have the new internal walls to create four out of the two and then that that demolished rear wall at ground floor level allows that rear extension which gives extra ground
Floor space at the rear but at first floor so from the point sorry just sorry to interrupt what what I’m trying to get at is when looking at these buildings from the front what will be seen will the vad uh on Main Street look the same at
The ground floor or will it be different uh is it going to be raised to the ground and built up I’m I’m still not entirely clear I see the internal walls in the back all of that understand it’s it’s how the building presents to fford Main Street that I’m interested in so
This is the this is the main street elevation yeah uh so um I can flip back to the as existing all the photographs uh but uh new windows uh new render and uh and works of General renovation but but that’s it in terms of the and terms of the um the front
Elevation we go back to the sorry yeah so there’s the uh the the drawing the has existing drawing so that HP to Gable there is uh is the the most significant change in terms of the appearance uh the rest is um really renovation and repair largely but that does involve you know rendering
And and uh new windows okay thank you yeah councilor Fenson please um just to clarify your mind the the bat situation so I’m writing thinking that um if approval were granted nothing could happen until the necessary license had been granted from granted by Natural England and had
Been received by the council is that yes that’s that kind of enshrined in the conditions of approve that’s that’s in the conditions okay thank you thank so in that case we we’ll move through to uh discussion um in this case specifically on the officer recommendation as it stands
Would anyone like to start us off with discussion or on Council offendum please um I think the point’s being made is a constrain site I think that certainly you wouldn’t um you wouldn’t build it with those Dimensions particularly in relation to the the access point but without further significant changes to
The the the main fabric of the building I’m not sure what you could do to improve that situation I think that will all whatever happens to the building the constrained access will will always be a feature so it’s it’s it’s clearly suboptimal but but I’m not sure um what could be
Done differently obviously the the proposals would introduce um more power parking on site than is currently the case with because the number of dwellings is being being increased so yes that would lead to a potential um conflict between Cycles pedestrians and and and motorized vehicles but again I’m not sure what um
Mitigation there could be other than perhaps um some kind of Road some treatment on the driveway to limit speeds in terms of um terms of some form of speed humps within the site is something something that I think potentially could orap should be considered to um to help but then would
That cause problems if you’re on a cycle having to go over a hump so there’s there’s I suppose every potential mitigation has a potential downside um I think the what’s proposed is a is a fairly drastic um intervention in terms of what um is currently there
But the the fact the facade of the building remains largely intact and is visually improved in comparison to what currently exists is is obviously a benefit and bringing the site back into productive use for housing is clearly a clearly a benefit that that I think is a does carry significant weight
Um so as asking San um minded to support the officer recommendation welcome others views yeah thank you councelor belly um thank you chair um yes I agree with that the access to the site could very easily be changed without quite large alterations um but I think the issue is that this proposed development
Increases the use of the site due to doubling the number of dwellings doubling the number of vehicle movements doubling the number of um people wanting to you know walk and cycle safely um to their home but I think um I’m still minded to approve with the officer recommendation because
It’s not such a high level of traffic um as to cause serious enough issues to be grounds to refuse it um looking at the proposed conditions about um protecting bats and bat habitats um I was just wondering whether that um condition needs to be f Med up a
Little bit be made a Little Bit Stronger um I’m just wondering something so it’s condition three on page 142 instead of it says Demolition and construction Works to any buildings within the application site shall not comp shall not commence unless the local planning Authority has been provided with either
And then goes to all the licenses instead of just being provided with I was wondering whe it needs to be something like confirmed receipt of suitable licenses something like that I think the the license is uh is the will be the official document from the government’s advisor on um from Natural England uh
So um but I think that I’m not quite sure what else you’d you’d we’d expect from the I just think that the planning Authority needs to have definitely received it and confirmed that it is all the correct sort of licenses not just that needs to have yes this condition is this
Condition is uh telling the applicant what they need to do so they need to provide it to us so that we so that’s that’s that’s they they can’t they can’t do anything else other than provide it to us and if they don’t provide it then they’ve not satisfied the the condition
Do they not need some sort of confirmation that it has been received no think so we’d have to submit it through a discharge of conditions application um which so they’ submit it to us we have six weeks to then say yes that’s okay and we give them a written
Confirmation of receiving it and it’s approved okay so they wouldn’t be able to commence constructional demolition straight away as soon as it’s admitted they’d need to wait for up to six weeks however long it takes for the discharge of condition to be confirmed yes okay um apart from that um yeah I’m
Minded to agree with the officer recommendation yeah councilor vassy please thank you chair I I’ve listen obviously to everything everyone else is saying I want to focus only on the ecology here um I think it’s really unfortunate that we set this thing up as a kind of battle between wildlife and
Human beings there doesn’t have to be a battle at all um we can take measures to protect and enhance biodiversity at very little cost and all move forwards what I think is a problem is when we pay lip service to change or we require others to pay lip service to change and don’t
Implement real action so I get concerned when I see there’s a condition that works can’t do happen between this date and this date to ensure nesting birds are protected from harm without there ever being any clear indication who’s going to monitor what’s going on and whether anything is ever
Protected um I get concerned when I just see at least two bird boxes at least one bat box um again because it doesn’t feel like we’re approaching this from a position of wanting to protect wildlife and Ena enable Wildlife to cohabit with human beings in these kind of settings
So I would like to suggest that given what has been said by the ecology officer um that list of requirements should uh say as many bat boxes as are deemed to be required by the results of the survey because it’s clear that there hasn’t been a very thorough survey if it
Requires two back boxes or three back boxes the cost is negligible I can’t see that the developer would say I refuse to see two back boxes um we’ve got an expert who’s going to look at this um and make a determination as to what’s required can we just have the condition that the
Number of B boxes is determined as a result of that uh similarly with uh the bird boxes can we include as we’ve said on a number of previous occasions Swift bricks into the construction much of this building is going to be dismantled it costs 150 quid to put in a swift box
Let it just be a matter of course why does it have to be a battle of wills to look after nature whilst welcoming new developments thank you um is there a a view on the process by which the license comes back and it says that there is
Bats higher amount of bats would that would that necessarily mean that we’d addition add additional B boxes at that time what how does that appro so this is two separate issues so the license the license and B license will um go into detail about the mitigation required for the bats
So that’s kind of replacement uh roosting facilities for the bats that have been been identified so we’ve got you know we’ve got a brown long Aid bat so we need specific type of mitigation for that species and that with it just being a single b as well Natural England will
Not accept over mitigation you can slight you have a slight increase in your mitigation provision but you cannot go and have you know tens and 20s when you’ve just of new roof sites when you’ve just got one Roo in B they have and they will reject license applications for over mitigation so
That’s that’s one one bit of your um ecological enhancement work the second and that’s why we’ve got that the second part of ecological um improvements are covered in that biodiversity um enhancement plan condition because that’s where the national planning policy framework kicks in for um providing ecological enhancements above
Mitigation um so the ecologists have made spe specific recommendations for box types um H based on their findings of the survey work so they have been to site quite a few times it’s not just a you know a general um a general recommendation it is based on their
Findings and um you know enhancements don’t always work if you if you throw them all in and you provid uh lots of different varieties for things that are not necessarily going to be there so the ecologist have actually made specific recommendations and um I’m happy to kind of support the recommendation based on
Their findings I have to say I’m not sure I’m any the wiser we’ve we’ve said on a number of occasions we’d like to see Swift Boxes Incorporated into Construction as a matter of course because we know that Swifts are a threatened species and that it helps to
Put Swift boxes in um what I think I’m hearing there is that if they don’t exist we should just allow that they’ve disappeared and that’s it goodbye Swifts I don’t see why we have to accept that on the planning committee and I would simply urge uh members to consider that we have a
Duty to ensure that we are enhancing uh biodiversity in our city that’s part of what we’re here for and and as I say I’m perfectly willing to accept that if the bat survey shows there was only one bat and there’s just one bat box fine if
We we are in this if I’m correct me if I’m wrong we are as part of these conditions accepting that there will be a new appraisal if that new appraisal shows there are more bats why would we not want to ensure that the planning condition allowed for more back
Boxes I I’m confused it it simply requires saying as many as are determined by the expert to be needed the we we we always have to remember that the the test of conditions the conditions have to be necessary so I guess we’re using the we’re using the survey work that has been been
Um uh that’s been provided to us to to produce a condition which we consider meets that necessity and reasonableness test yeah um sorry I I will conf just um with um I guess at the moment it’s worded as at least one type of bat box
So I think if the license come back and request more there is provision in the way it’s written at the moment to support that but in terms of Swift boxes I think that sounds like something that you could request in addition to what’s being requested there currently um
Councilor Waters sorry just to try and help out um would it not be better if the condition was worded to say something along the lines of proportionate numbers um with anything that’s found in further surveys I know that’s a clumsy way of doing it but proportionate is the word that ought to go
In they’re conferring yes so the the mitigation strategy that goes in with the license application has to be informed by survey data so you can only you could only base your mitigation on what you’ve found so for example you know they they’ve got the brown long Aid back there so they
Need to F provide mitigation that’s appropriate to that species if they found if if for example you were in a nice wooded habitat that would had lots of other species flying around and foraging then maybe you’d consider providing or the mitigation for those species but that’s not something that’s been found
Here so the license do doesn’t necessarily it does not include enhancement it only includes mitigation and that can only be based on your servy data Council Waters pleas so what would happen if they actually found more when they surveyed again and we limited ourselves or or would we be better as
The representation says postponing a decision on this until there been the further surveys so if they found different things during their surveys to support the license application obviously they would still need to make a license application and it would be applicable to their findings but that wouldn’t necessarily change in
The word it wouldn’t change our the wordin of our condition really because obviously they still have to to apply for the the license from natural England and then when they have received the ACT planning permissions granted then provide that back to us so so I’m I’m not quite
Sure what answer you want really sorry so the the license would specify what mitigations they’d need in terms of number of boxes so if if they found that they actually had multiple bats and they needed more than one box that’ be specified in the license and they’d fit
More than one box yes so it’s a really complicated process the license application and you have to to you have to provide a very detailed method statement of what you what you’re going to do so it’s not just what you’re going to provide um at the end so if you’re
Going to provide a new roof site new boxes it’s going through the entire methodology of what you’re going to what’s going to happen you know from from the point of starting works on SES so thank you um and I guess the second part of this question just so we can get
Uh kind of closed this bit off um in terms of specifying specifically uh a swift box where we’ve got two at least two bird boxes currently uh is a a situation for specifically specifying a species and interaction is that yeah specific species can be recommended but it should be informed by
Your site so I don’t think really in this case with it being quite um just a two story just you know it’s just got the two stories necessarily right for a swift um not necessarily I think it’d be more Garden bird species that you’d find in this area
Um I think that that M the enhancement features should be site specific and based on survey data as opposed to um and I I agree that we can you know improve and have a few sort of additional things um in the hope of in attract ing new species and new Wildlife
To areas but I I think it should be realistic as well and we shouldn’t lose out on species that we have which probably Garden species here for the sake of putting up a swift box that isn’t applicable to the site thank you Council vassi please
Thank you Jess just just to move it on then I mean I’d be very surprised if there’s anyone in this room who doesn’t recognize Nature’s struggling um I’d be very surp surprised if the developer said I just couldn’t countenance spending 120 quid on a swift box to be incorporated in the fabric of
The building can I just suggest that we put and we we alter that uh condition and just put at least two uh type bird boxes at least one uh shler type bat boxes and two Swift bricks and put include that in the vote and see whether
People support that or not and then move on and so does that have broad agreement okay can I propose that yeah that that’s been proposed and it seems okayo agreed um okay does anyone have would anyone like to add anything in terms of General discussion or would anyone like to move in terms
Of uh formally proposing the recommendation okay yeah I’m happy happy to propose um moving the officer recommendation to approve yeah thank you and would anyone like second that please uh not seeing anybody I will happy to second that myself if no one else do it from from my perspective it’s
Uh uh you know it’s a DSE scheme but I think density in urban location is a positive in terms of providing new housing and the access being the way it is I think we’ll have limited vehicle movements through it and those vehicle movements will be kind of the speed of
Them is actually reduced by the WID of the access in itself so it produces quite a apart from the corner a fairly safe environment and the fact that the highways team have not flagged any concerns when actually quite safety conscious in the council perhaps more so
Than a developer would be gives me a lot of confidence that actually they they feel that that’s the reason reasonable Arrangement so I’m happy to second that proposal um in that case um bar could you take us through the it will indeed include thank you chair so uh the
Um the recommendation is uh on page 41 onwards so seeking delegated authority for the head of planning and development services to approve the application subject to uh the section 106 agreement and uh the planning conditions set out in the schedule on the following Pages uh subject to the amendment of condition
Four uh to require Swift bricks to Swift bricks in addition to the Bur and that boxes thank you um in that case can I see all those who would like to vote for the officer recommendation that’s unanimous so in that case the officer recommendation is um approved and the application is
Approved as well um we’ll take a very short break so that those who’ve come uh to speak who aren’t speaking on the next item can leave if they’d like um would anyone like a break generally more so than a minute okay we’ll just give it a minute and then we’ll carry on
Okay will’ll um we’ll pick back up uh here sorry I can get fix that’s sor um we we’ll pick back up here we’re moving on to item 4 B uh which is fulford flood alleviation scheme um I’ll ask garyth again if please if you can take us through that I just mention
Before we start the presentation we’ve also been joined by CLA McCrae who is the council’s archaeologist eyes on us thank thank you CH thank you chair so item 4B an application for f f deviation scheme uh for Germany Beck to address flooding of the uh the Selby Road Main
Street uh a19 area and the and forland Road uh so the scheme is uh designed to protect Selby road the forland road residential area and to maintain access into the fordland roads um estate area uh the site so this is the a19 uh fordland Road um I’m going to call this thoron
Road I believe Thornton Road here and there sby Road recreation ground this is Landing Lane all of which are are referred to in the in the agenda package and the roote of uh Germany Beck itself this tree lined uh Tree Line back um Stone Arch which goes through goes
Under the aine scene and off towards the ooze and then slightly more uh close in um image of The Proposal so what’s proposed is a oops let’s go to the sorry there we go whil proposed is a uh a new pumping station in this area to
The east of uh the a19 and a new access and parking area for for maintenance access a new uh outfall to the West so the pumping station out for you see that dotted that dashed line uh that’s the new uh outfall from the pumping station proposed uh there’s a new flood
Wall across Germany back to the west of the a19 earth flood embankments um another Earth flood embankment on Landing Lane uh to fill a a depression between the the the Beck and the Highland to the South it’s contemp a temporary construction a compound and access from forland
Road and then tree works and tree Works will uh include the removal of 21 trees so the site is in part in the Forefront Village Conservation Area so the area hatched in red is uh it’s Conservation Area west of the a19 and hatched in blue is the site forting site of special scientific
Interest um the area is in flood zone 2 and three it’s in Green Belt and uh he’s also in an area assumed to be site of fulford it’s not currently in the register of historic battlefields but uh there is a decision on a revised smaller Battlefield area being reviewed by historic
England so let me go through those phot graphs again so these are the existing flood walls uh for the back site of the pumping station roughly in this location uh the trees to be taken out pretty much what you see in front of us there and the new access
It’s in that location see that blue sandbag uh which are current uh flood mitigation slightly slightly slightly different shots so the area was the area of tree removal is in this area here from the playing field looking down onto the down onto the A9 SC so you can see the uh the
Sandbags cross the playing field again the sandbags form a really useful reference points because the dash have slightly different color there so you can orientate yourself and against a wider view that line of flood wall there existing the site of the pumping station middle shot this a general sight Arrangement so
The the the the kosk uh the pumps um the outflow on the other side of the uh the a19 the new flood wall and the new embankments maintenance access take from here let get s gives enough space for a vehicle to um uh to turn and exit the site in a
Forward gear I think that’s been um modeled on a skip Lorry so they need to remove debris from the trash screens here there’s a root of the Germany back and the Old Stone Arch there the puming station elevations from the East uh from the north so that shows the screen and the
Pumps and uh the the the kiosk plad in Brick it’s from Selby road so this is the uh this is the wall flood wall where we saw uh pointed out the trees that were done to be removed and the access into the parking area so it’s a pumping
Station so elevated up above uh the uh the relevant flood level a pumping station elevation and the pumping station section towards HBY road so again there’s the there’s the wall the existing Stone um Stone Arch C pping station section towards the playing field so you see the control kiosk the
Pumps and the outfall to Germany back just get some air and some idea of what we’re looking at through the site so on the other side so this is um the west side of Main Street looking East so this is the out for from the
Pumps and then uh the the the pen stock which controls the the flow of Germany back um during times of flood so visualization of um of what’s proposed Landing Lane embankment so this area of embankment here shows a f gra so roughly in roughly in this position tree
Removal difficult to see but uh so you see the pumping station uh sorry the control kiosk and the pumps here so the trees to be removed of these uh red dotted trees that whole area significant um area of tree removal but read in the report in terms of the
Uh um the planning balance and the necessity in terms of the location and that’s the uh that’s the end of the presentation there is a there is an update written update to Natalie thanks um yep so in terms of updates we received an additional objection um on
The n of January 2024 and those grounds have been summarized in your update sheet and they’re mainly on archaeology and Landscaping concerns we do need to update a couple of the planning conditions um condition four which is archaeology related needs to be split into two separate conditions that was
Just a typological error um and then condition six also needs to be updated to remove the words the fford battlefield society and other interested parties this is because we can’t consult um these parties as part of a discharge of conditions however we recommend an informative that the applicant consults
These parties before submitting um the scheme of interpretation to the council for approval we have assessed the additional information and the officer’s recommendation remains for approval subject to the conditions um set out in the report and as amended above thanks um looky moving to questions and clarification on the plans one thing I
Will mention is that the application’s been put forward by the council uh typically we’d be joined by Steve rag the flood RIS manager but as applicant he’ll be speaking as the applicant so technical questions in terms of the operation of the flood barrier need to
Be directed at that point if you want to ask questions in a technical manner in terms of the flood defenses um does anyone have any questions on the plans before we go to public passation yeah Council of asked please just a quick one thank you chair um you didn’t show us
Which trees would be taken out on the west side of the a19 when you were showing uh the trees marked in red uh on your plan showed trees on the east side but not on this no you’re right I didn’t no conspiracy intended uh so uh these are trees marked um
Generally red red hatching so where the where the the the frood war is proposed to be proposed to be built uh so best way to show this so This the the trees in this general area well not necessarily the ones I’m showing this general area on
The on the other side the the western side of the uh a19 and generally here so you can see Germany back there so the flood wall is there so these are the trees in this area to be removed Afra we don’t have a we don’t have a street level photograph
I’m afraid to make sure I’ve understood because it’s it seems there’s a Bund being created next to Landing Lane yeah that are those trees that we’re seeing in the middle of the picture are they all staying or are they all going yes they stay so the Landing Lane
Bund doesn’t necessitate the removal of the of the tree there is a note uh take care note around the um um around the crown spread of of that one but that’s uh yeah those those trees in that group oh okay sorry there’s part removal of
That um whatever G what is G25 do we know says a group of Sycamore so yes one of them here is removed any of questions councilor Waters please given the concerns that’s just been expressed about some tree loss um won’t we be better with conditions 11
And 12 being for the lifetime of the development or in perpetuity it’s 10 years isn’t really a long span for the replacement planting which you know could conceivably come under pressure in 10 years time um yes I mean the 10 years 10 years allows them to grow and Thrive and become
Established and and they’re they’re also on they’re on third party land so the ones on this side are um uh Parish Council land and then um yes so so that that that was the reason and they’ be managed in the same way that the parish council manage um
The rest of their their estate really so we weren’t proposing to uh to impose a condition that required uh any longer um you know that maintaining their estate in the same way that the city council maintain and uh and alter um public open spaces from time to time as as they used
Develops I guess it want so much the parish council future maintenance that concerned me it was just should anybody come along in the future wanting to extend the engineering works I think the the more protection the replacement trees have the better and I’m sure um yeah the parish councilor speaking I’m
Sure they wouldn’t mind um a condition in perpetuity but replacement trees yeah we can we can discuss this as part of the discussion phase that’s something you want to do um I’m not seeing any other questions at this time uh we’ll move into public participation the first one uh the first
Speaker is Andrew R of uh fford Council please if you join us yeah thank you okay yeah just just start when you’re ready okay I’m Andrew Vias um Parish councilor of forward uh just for the record I’m also a member of the US and do and idb uh we have
Submitted with regard to this application and we are we are supportive of the installation of a pumping station only recently we’ve had flooding and it’s been necess necessary to have portable pumps installed and a a temporary foot bridge to protect the people of forland road so um we want a
Permanent solution to this however there are a a couple of points I’d like to bring up which are relevant to this uh We’ve submitted a written submission which is somewhat longer and I’m only going to tell you few two of the things that run that loss of trees
Which we’re we’re talking about already here um damage to biod diversity um we would like to see replacement trees where inevitably certain trees have to be removed we let see replacement trees but mature specimens not whips which could take years to to uh develop and there’s one particular tree
Which uh I don’t I can’t see that map because it’s too far away from my eyesight but there’s a t19 on one of these which is a an ash tree it’s quite large but I think it’s right on the border between the actual development and the field uh I’m not sure at this
Point whether that’s retainable but we like as much as possible for uh the the developer to retain this if it can be done otherwise to be replaced by a mature specimen and maintained for as long as necessary I quite like the idea that be be maintained for imp perpetuity so if
That’s a possible condition then that’s even better uh right lots of trees the next one and this this this is my our main concern we’re losing open space this is taking place on a chunk of uh forland Road playing field and we we’re having this land taken away from
Us we’d like to see a replacement uh for that and and so uh we’ve asked for this already in our submission um we we’d like to have further discussion to be held regarding alternative compensatory land made available uh if if that can be placed as a condition on on the uh on
The grant is providing you do decide to to Grant permission for the whole thing um that would be very desirable to us okay thank you finished thank you um G I like to ask any further questions speak Council C please thanks chair um just a couple of things on the
Replacement land um s two sort of questions of that you got some land in mind um already identified and second would that be for recreational purposes because I know you talk a bit in your um submission about how it’s is actually usable land as well the the bit that’s
Been lost around Germany Bay well the land we’ve got at the moment is is recreational land on on the corner of U for’s Road field yeah so if that’s removed it we do need something to compensate for that is that the answer you’re seeking I’m not quite sure yeah it’s called recreational purposes
Yes it would be open space land yes and then I guess my first question was have you already identified land or have you already identified a bit of land no no okay thank you thanks Council of waters please it’s more a question for GIS while the speaker still sat there
Is is it possible to condition such an arrangement or would it have to be an informative requiring discussions between the applicant and the parish council to in terms of the replacement yeah I think we’d have To what you what you what we can’t do is impose a condition which effectively refuses the planning permission through condition so I think we would have to we would have to have some reasonable um we’d have to we’d have to be reasonably assured that there is some
Land in fford which is available for that purpose that is perhaps cyc owned and could be transferred to the parish council um because if that land doesn’t exist uh then the condition is effectively um Torpedoes the the scheme as a whole uh you you will have read
Our officers view over the the issue of replacement um replacement land we don’t think in the planning balance it’s necessary but um it wouldn’t be unlawful to require it as long as say as long as we can be reasonably sure that it it there is some available there is also obviously there’s a
Separate uh outside of the planning process the negotiation from the city council to to to take presumably purchase that land anyway that’s that runs separate to their planning application process so going back to the speaker then are you aware of any city of York Council land that is available in the reasonable
Locality not city of yorkland no okay Council can just confirm you’re asking for further consultation yes indeed not a block on the development no absolutely not no no this is something which I would expect to to happen fairly soon though afterwards not not something that you build it and then
Discuss it I really like to be discussing it fairly soon if if that’s if that can be put on as a condition um we will I think this will come back we’ll come back to this in the in the discussion phase rather than keep your sap while it’s going on does anyone have
Any further questions for the for the speaker while no no thank you very much for your time thank you um uh the uh the next speaker is uh councelor Kate ravilious again and again she’s provided a statement which I will read out on her behalf so I’m Ward counselor for fulford
And heslington and I’d like to offer my support for this scheme residents of the forland Road Community have lived with the threat of the their homes being flooded and the travel disruption associated with forland roads flooding for far too long this scheme will provide reliable access to a community
Of over 300 homes and protect some 43 properties from flooding in addition it will keep the a19 open a vital arterial Road connecting York with the a64 it’s important that this scheme has progressed in conjunction with local stakeholders and with this in mind I would like the committee to consider the
Following conditions firstly I’d like to the reassurance that the loss of open space is renegotiated with fulford Parish Council and future land ownership is established with priority and secondly I’d like the committee to include the conditions requested by the council archaeologist which I’ll outline in brief here and which can be found in
Full at the end of the archaeology report uploaded to planning portal on the 3D of April 2023 uh and one no development of archaeological investigation shall take place until a written scheme of Investigation for all outlined archaeological Works been submitted to and approved by the local planning Authority in writing
Uh condition imposing Accord for section 16 of mppf number two a program of archaeological building recording is required condition is imposed in accordance with section 16 of mppf and policy D7 the draft local plan and thirdly a scheme of interpretation relating to the Battle of fulford is
Required uh thank you for allowing me to time and share with you I think we’ll come back to the tests around the uh conditions later that’s part of the discussion so we’ll move on to the final speaker uh speaking his support as the applicant uh Steve rag if
You can join us please uh it’s the council flood officer uh good evening um members of the committee I’m Steve rag flus manager city of York Council I’m the project manager for this uh um application um I think everyone’s aware of the flood risk issues in this
Location in the city uh as colleagues from the parish council alluded there and and councelor ravilious there’s been recent flooding just this winter alone five named storms caus significant operational response in that location um this scheme is designed to um mitigate that and reduce the likelihood of that
Happening again vastly reduce the amount of operational response that’s required and Safeguard and give reassurances to that committee uh the flood risk at this location is predominantly from the Rivero the higher River levels in the Rivero make their way back into Germany Beck and into tunnel drain which is a
Tributary of Germany Beck which goes into the fordland community and the solution is essentially very similar to other Solutions elsewhere in the city take the fos barrier for example this is a much much smaller version of that of course but you have a structure that stops High River levels coming back into
A tributary and then pumps which will keep the level levels low in that tributary and the same sort of approach is evident on bird Ike and hallgate Beck and different parts of the city um so the solution as which been LED through by uh planning colleagues shows that
There’s a pumping station there on the east side of the a19 pen stocks close the west side of the the the uh River where it comes under the a19 to stop the river coming back upstream and those pumps pump the levels through to keep the levels lower there will still be
Higher River levels the in the Germany be catchment but they will be held at a level which will be below the forland road bridge and below the outfall of tunnel drain allowing forlands road to be maintained dry and tunnel drain to drain effectively without any water backing up there we already have flood
Defenses on the a19 which were part and parcel of the delivery of the Thornton Road access road by Pimon Holmes um that was part of planning gain at the time it allowed us to use their operatives whilst on site to extend the um the retaining walls of the highway to form
An effective but not as you know complete as we would like flood defense so at present we still have to carry out pumping there our scheme would pull all of those things together the drainage of tunnel drain keeping down levels on forland road the localized drainage
There around the a19 and it would be a coherent response there we recognize the impacts we recognize the biodiversity issues we you know found a European e as part of our surveys and we’ve had to redesign it with national environment agency Fisheries Specialists um we’ve tried to site it as low as possible
Within that area of the land and we do recognize the concerns of the parish council and we believe that we’ve done as much to mitigate that as possible and archaeology has been something where we’ve brought forward many many other surveys and and worked with the battlefield um Society to try to
Minimize the impacts that it will bring so finalize I think you know we can all see the benefits that this would bring in terms of the a19 which is a main arterial link to the city a community that can be stranded for days or longer
At a time and D in direct impact of more than 40 properties and hopefully committee can find it to approve this scheme as we move forward thank you thank you does anyone have any questions for the speaker um the only question obviously has been discussion around uh alternative spaces for a public open
Space I want to know what discussions the council’s had around that and or what the situation is there I guess if else happened so far yeah throughout the last few years I’ve met with colleagues in the Parish Council on quite a few occasions we’ve held drop in sessions
For not just the parish council but also for the community and we’ve we’ve had many discussions on um the position and the placement of the the scheme and we’ve always recognized that we are habitating an area of Parish Council land so we’ve always said that planning permission is
The first step to show that we’ve got got a scheme that will work and will mitigate and minimize the impacts on the wide range of things that we always look for within planning applications but we’ always recognized that there will be further agreements that we will need to
Be held with the parish regarding the long-term placement of the um pumping station there so you know we were always prepared that planning permission was only the first step those discussions would be the next stage involving city of York Council States legal colleagues and obviously the parish council through
Those discuss s the parish has raised the idea of um alternate sites and I’ll be honest I will be led by the decisions of this committee and the informatives or conditions that the committee agrees today um but if you know the committee is minded to say that
One solution would be trying to find an alternate placement for that open space then that you know that commitment from myself to Curry on work working with the parish on all aspects that of approvals and you know decisions that need to be made you know I will continue that
Discussion but at the minute the delegate the the officer’s reports you know takes one stance but I would be steered by the finders of the committee as to that discussion that took place just before I came to the table really if if an alternate provision is seen as
The right thing to do then that will be part of my discussions okay thank you uh councilor waters I’ll come to you first sorry um will you also commit to work with the parish council um as to seeing what can be done to save t19 um given it’s a mature Ash obviously
Not going to get a replacement Ash if it is lost yeah I do have someone from our from from our consultant here Acom who’ve done the tree surveys uh so this is Indie um and I can’t remember with the t19 whether or not there was any
Leeway on that but if there wherever we can tweak things and change things we’ve got a red line boundary there to obviously take all aspects on board you know regarding the the the access road and and things and if things could be done to actually save trees then we will
Do what we can counselor of course I can’t remember with t19 just how tight it was around that one and How likely and necessary it was to remove that but we would commit to not just um replace you know any trees that lost but wherever possible try to retain if
Possible you know that’s good practice as we move to the construction phase thanks Council bass did you still thank you chair yes I’d just like to ask why all this wasn’t Incorporated when Thornton Road and that Junction was done at the start I’m trying to remember when it
Happened I think it was about eight to 10 years ago why wasn’t that considered and if it had been incorporated into that scheme might we have seen a lower environmental impact to achieve the results we’re looking to achieve today yeah the the discussions with piman regarding the the Germany B
Development go back a long way um as many people will be aware and discussions regarding the access to the site and the impacts that that brought specifically and The Wider site of course you know have gone through many iterations and have gone outside of this this this room and to higher places as
As everyone will be aware but the the long and the short of it is essentially the the developers identified that by building Fon Road it’s it’s took up some of the flood plane there it’s FL flood zone 3 and they needed to compensate for that for
The loss of flood plane which is an essential uh mppf requirements so there are a sequence of retaining ponds as you go further up Germany back towards the university which are designed as compensatory storage to mitigate the impact of Thornton Road what they did find through their assessment was there
Was no increase through their development whether it’s Thornton Road itself or the the development as a whole there was no increase in flood risk to the a19 or to forlands Road or the fordland community so therefore it was outside of you know anything they was required of
Them in terms of planning game what we did have and this goes back a long long long way I I’ve been here 11 years and it predates my my involvement in any of these these planning issues there was an element of section one or six attached to the project with regards to flood
Resilience for the a19 and in reality it was a rather small amount in in in present day terms in in actual Financial value but what we managed to do when the developers were on site building essential retaining walls for where thoron Beck thoron Road meets the a19 and then on the other side
Of the road um we we we got them to work with us to actually extend them in extent a little bit to actually put a more cohesive concrete core in places they also I don’t know if you notice when Gareth showed the picture of uh Landing Lane got them to raise the TAC
So into essentially a super siiz speed speed bump and that’s up to the flood level so we did get them to put in place a whole range of flood resilience improvements where they were already carrying out highways retaining works but it wasn’t the full solution we still
Need to put pumps in there to pump the localized drainage where it comes down around the corner we still need to put something in place to block up the area where the pump station will be so it wasn’t the full solution so no we couldn’t have forced or requested or
Instructed P Simmons to do these works as part of their development because they simply weren’t increasing these risks and therefore the impacts but what we did do is we utilize one aspect of that that was targeted towards flood resilience e19 and and got to them to do
More if they if we could have got them to do it as part of the works would it have made it better I can’t remember the exact phrase counselor so apologies but would it have reduced the environmental harm I think we’re saying weren’t you and that’s where Acom did a piece of
Work earlier last year uh to actually look at the side of this with a pumping station like this you can either put it upstream or Downstream with the thing you’re wanting to keep dry or you can put it on either side of the back and we looked at the constraints here we’ve
Obviously got the trip SII on the other side got the conservation area to on both sides of the North and then we’ve got um the the the the um the potential Battleground sites um you know obviously on on that side of the river and a multi criteria analysis was made of all of
That to actually see which was the sites that was was best for the placement included also hydraulically what was the best placement for it you know where it could be designed best to be more most effective in the most efficient way and all of those things ended up with this
As the preferred site so if others had have done that if you know P Simmons had have done that as part of that their work they would have more than likely come with the same sighting and the same sort of General Arrangement okay thank you thanks um just uh two quick questions
For me on archaeology um one would you be able to kind of explain the interaction with fulford Battlefield and where that’s Pros having received this information I guess if one was in relation to the proposed conditions put forward by councelor of ilus and are you happy that they’re covered in the
Conditions in the report sorry uh the conditions discussed in the statement which we the you mean the Amendments the Amendments yes I’m happy with the Amendments one was simply just a typo error where two of my conditions had been run together and I understand um the amendments to condition six was it
Yeah about the um interpretation I understand the reasoning for that okay so that’ll just be thanks um yes yeah there was I think they’ve been um sorry and then the in relation to Battlefield um and how that relates to the site and what what the view is essentially yeah the pumping station is
Situated um in what you would call the heart of the um assumed Battlefield site um the site is under reviewed by historic England for the second time for potential designation for the register of of battlefields um that work is completely separate to this planning application I have discussed the site um when this
First came up at pre-application and um and over time since then with historic England and the Specialists who are specifically specific specifically assessing the battlefield and we all agree myself and historic England that the um the proposed pumping station as it is um here before us tonight will not
Impact act upon the ability to make that decision on designation so um it the site was put forward for designation um 10 or so years ago and turned down by historic England and that was due to um securing enough evidence to uh securely locate the battle at that
Site but since then um fford Battlefield Society have been able to um produce more evidence which um supports their claim that this is indeed the site of the battle and that is why historic England are again considering that and that we’re just waiting on some um peer reviews basically some independent
Reviews of the the work from the battlefield Society so um but it has been agreed that the visual impact of this scheme will not um will not stop the designation of that site should historic England agree that there is sufficient evidence this time round thank you um there any other
Questions this time for the applicant um okay in that case I’m happy for you to take a seat thank you does anyone have any further questions at this time for officers councelor Melly um thanks chair um I’m just trying to understand what the view of the development on the east
Side will be from the East you showed a picture of the site as it is now kind of looking across the field towards those conveniently placed sandbags but in terms of there’ll be a new bank bank built does that obscure the view I think in the report it says it
Obscures the view of the pumping station but not the control kiosk I was just trying to understand like the different relative levels and how um how they’ll be obscured um I talk how high the buns are on the drawing so the this is this is an elevation what yeah so this is the
Elevation from the um from the playing field so um I think as I explained when we went through the presentation that the the chaos stands roughly at the same height of the um the coping Stone from the from the flood wall the existing flood wall and you can see there where
The we can’t see because it’s not a section but but um you can see that the the the pipes from the pumps and they’re obviously raised uh above the slightly above that level the chaos sits at a higher Point uh but a lot of the a lot of the workings are under effectively
Underground um so the Bund will have some screening impact uh there’s also oops what’s going on there sorry the right drawing so the the the Earth embankment does does wrap around but it’s an area at the moment it’s treed and there won’t be trees uh
In this area uh there will be a woodland belt um planted to to try and mitigate that that change in the change in the view afraid we don’t have the planting plan on the drawings but Natalie can you show me that plan the planting plan a little hard copy no it’s okay so
They the the Woodland the new Woodland planting uh goes in an arc within the red line within the red line boundary and then finishes around here so there’s that um that mitigation to the view across the playing fields um and then there is a proposal outside of outside of this application there’s
Um you might be aware of the environment agency mitigation measures the the the one to five tree replanting and I think there is a proposal for tree planting in this location according to the uh according to the drawing that we’ve we’ve submitted we’ve had submitted to us but that’s a separate separate to
This uh but um yeah there’s there’s no denying that that that because of its location because of the raised the raised um level of the kiosk that that’s a significant change to the to the appearance especially from the road here but um it’s it’s this the only show in town really
In terms of flood alleviation what we’re trying to achieve Council of waters please just to assist and move it on I quite happily recommend approval subject to us um agreeing some of these amended conditions um course I would imagine everybody will agree the amended archaeology conditions um I’d just like to return
Back to conditions 11 and 12 um you heard from pford Parish Council there would be quite content to see those conditions reworded for the lifetime of the development or in perpetuity whichever one you choose and I’m not doubting in any way Steve’s sincerity because he’s um give
Us an excellent appraisal there but I still think there ought to be an informative uh along the lines of that the applicant will work with the parish council to best Endeavors to rain t19 and of course as I said it’ll have to be an informative rather than a
Condition yeah thank you for that sorry I think the council sorry CH I still have another question no no if you want to that question thank you um it was just about the temporary construction compound because usually when we have an application for temporary planning permission um it’s quite specific about
How long it’s for and I just couldn’t see anything in the application or the conditions or the requirements of the construction environment management plan about exactly how long that um compound will be there for or even roughly how long it will be there actually um if there isn’t um we can
Yeah condition requiring the the the compound and the and the temporary Hall Road to be removed um on so the rudland trees okay right okay do you want to ask that question um we can we can word a condition um to remove the temporary access and Roads and things but there is
Landscape imposed in some of those areas where the roads going to be so the Woodland belt um is is um near the temporary construction road um and we’ve asked for that Woodland belts be planted within six months so we could tie in a condition to remove all the construction
Road before the planting that we need how could we do how could we well the condition condition 11 requires the uh the landscape layout um to be implemented within a period of six months within the Practical completion of the development which I guess that from from
What Natalie say is that that will that will require that they can’t implement the Landscaping condition without removing removing the compound and the uh and the and the construction road so it’s probably not necessary to have another condition saying you have to remove the road because they have to
Remove the road because they won’t be able to to implement the Landscaping um yeah because usually you don’t have to implement the whole of a planning planning application it can be influenced in part but no but in in this case they have to so 11 is a requirement
That they they implement the land cap aping layout plan within six months of the Practical completion development so they they breach of the planning permission um because there’s a condition require specifically requiring that Landscaping to be to be implemented could we tie it in with that condition
As well so saying all temporary things needs to be removed within six months of completion um because I know some parts of land don’t cover all the Landscaping areas is yeah I guess I it’s always TI again tied up with the what’s how what’s necessary uh but uh to to be to be
Completely sure that everything’s removed you could add sentence to condition 11 to to require that sorry so um the landscape layout plan that’s referenced in condition 11 as being completed within six months of the completion of the development that same layout plan is part of the development it’s one of the plans
Referenced in condition to as being part of the development yes so I mean probably not a problem but it doesn’t really make sense that they have to complete that layout within six months of having completed that layout Sor do I don’t think it’s a problem that that it’s in both places um
But yeah I it’s not a problem that it’s in the the plans condition uh but if it needs to be it it needs to be in condition 11 because that’s the that’s the that’s the trigger condition that requires it to be done if we just had it listed in
Condition two and then didn’t have any other conditions saying it had to go ahead then that comes back to your issue about they don’t have to complete so that requires them to complete thank you y with all that then thanks thank you um I think we are now definitely moving into discussion is
That right yes yeah Council bassu if you’d like to count from Council thank you chair yes first of all I note uh 5.59 refers to a recommendation that should be fish friendly pumps because there are eels in the back um I don’t see anything in the recommendations and and conditions to
Suggest that that’s a requirement am I missing something 5.59 says uh to include appropriate engineering I.E fish friendly pumps and then when we get to the conditions on biodiversity there’s nothing in there so I’m just wondering if it’s somewhere else um at 5.59 we’ve asked for a finalized construction Environmental
Management plan um which is a a c CM which has been conditioned at seven um so the fish friendly pumps will be approved via condition s within the CM CM if that helps sorry so so where is it in the in the conditions oh is it conditioned are you saying that it’s
It’s contained within the finalized CM that has to be produced if it helps shair there is reference in condition 15 all right okay condition 15 relates to machinery and plant so it might be in there but it would be expected condition 15 is a noise condition uh the fish friendly
Pumps are specified on the design drawings um so they’re part of the they’re part of the scheme um they’re part of the scheme drawings I’m not sure fish friendly low flow pump so they’re specified in design it’s hard to see part of the desire you’re forgiv you’re telling
Me um the the other observations I’d like to make chair are relating to trees and quite a few things have been said so far for me I’ve been coming down that road since I was a kid and one of the things that is a characteristic of that
Road is that it feels almost rural until you’re suddenly in fford Main Street and what worries me about what’s being proposed is that we’re going from something like that to something that at least for a period of years is going to look Urban a whole load of trees will have
Gone there’ll be buildings where there were previously the beings and scrub and vegetation and the impact of that for me as an individual is considerable when people talk about conservation areas and character of place and all of that um and therefore I think it’s very important that the vegetation that is planted is
As was suggested by the speaker from the parish council uh is consists of trees that are mature enough to quickly pull that area back to what it looked like previously um when I look at the pumping station itself I see an ugly building that looks
Like it could be a a garage on on an industrial estate uh out of keeping with the buildings in an area that’s previously been a trip SII and I would like to think that we make every move possible to hide that building as quickly as possible I regret
That it appears no one has considered whether that building itself might look better in its environment why wasn’t Cedar cladding involved or why isn’t there a green roof why is it that because it’s a utilitarian building we just treat it like it’s a garage and it
Doesn’t matter um in an area which as I say is historically I mean we hear about the Battle of fulford and that’s that’s hundreds of years ago just going back 40 50 60 years ago this was a rural area and going back just 10 years before Thornton Road was
Created there was trip SI on both sides of the road as I understand it that’s what I saw when I was driving in and when it flooded so I I’m really Keen that the conditions ensure that all the planting brings this area back to what it looks like now as quickly as possible
So mature trees as has been said by various people um and an attention to helping that building recede so that the the the view we see when we come into York from the south on the arterial Road into the city isn’t transformed from one that has an industrial landscape on the
Right hand side of the road but quickly that is must so I’m happy to hear other people’s expertise and suggestions as to how we make those conditions do that if that’s supported by other people around the table uh I guess it’s almost a query for yourselves specifying the maturity of uh
I guess they’ve put forward the type of tree in their plan can we request that they change the because obviously there’s a cost implication to changing the maturity of a tree speech is that something we can request as part of a condition or is that something that it’s almost influencing so the Landscaping
Scheme they put forward um they put a planting schedule forward of um six Silver Birch three Hawthorne and three oak trees um between the heights of 250 and 300 CM um and this has been designed by landscape architect so I can’t comment if we can increase the sizes of
Them um at this point but in terms of the Woodland mix they’re doing two Woodland mixes as well which is 62 trees in one Woodland and 22 trees in another um with of varying Heights um but as we’ve specified the Heights on the planting schedule which we’ve recommended for
Approval that’s that’s what’s being considered but those trees that we’re discussing in front of the pumping station at 250 and 300 so fairly mature species I guess compared to a whip they whip yeah they’re described as light standard yeah light standard I think the answer is we can’t ask them to change
The maturity of the tree species in there because that’s what’s specified in the plan we got has come to change we can’t we can only approve what’s in the plan or disate what’s in the plan we could ask them to alter the plan that’s put forward as part of a condition
Essentially it seems to or do you think different that may not well you you can um that’s because if you’re unhappy with a a part of The Proposal then uh you can either seek by condition an alternative or seek to defer subject to another another planting scheme being submitted
If you’re unhappy with it but you have our recommendation and you have the views of our of a CCI cyc Landscape Architects within the within the scheme um so it’s and I think there are there are always issues with uh the the the biggest standards that they they
Have I think they might might be more prone to failure and they require more um uh they require more uh more onsite maintenance um but I’m not an expert on that so don’t take that as well wish I hadn’t said it uh but uh there is a you
Know there there will there will be implications in terms of in terms of providing more mature planting from the outset that I think the applicants would need to would would would have to consider I think yeah we’d have to give them the opportunity to consider that
But it is in your hands right so slightly different to what I said so before I pass on to respond to what what I think spe just said we can request that the trees be of a certain height um I’d say if we couldn’t do it
Why are we here as a committee you know the applicant is our own city council for goodness sake um and the cost of a whip and the cost of a tree is the between 5 quid and 40 quid so um I would certainly urge us to require that the
Council does what it can with its own application to ensure that it mitigates the time that this uh development will impact negatively on the visual aspect of the city yeah councilor Fenson please I um having look at the um planting plans I I think they’re I think they’re
Appropriate um we’re not talking about whips we’re talking about um more mature specimens um I I agree if if if more can be done I’m sure it I would hope it will be I certainly don’t see um the proposed height of the trees to be planted as a reason to defer or
Refuse I think that would be um out of proportion I think the it’s been suggested that the condition be toughened in terms of um protecting trees are planted for the um imp perpetuity um I haven’t heard anything said that would May me think that would
Be a bad idea or would have adverse or perverse consequences um so I see little harm in in adding that I think in terms of the issues raised around um compensatory land being provided elsewhere um I’m a bit queasy about getting too sucked into that that uh that debate um
Particularly as there isn’t a piece of land identified as as providing that compensation um so I think I don’t think we can and I don’t think we should um almost require that as a condition of approval because if the land doesn’t exist within the council’s ownership
Then um the scheme can’t be delivered so I think that would be be very unwise um if something can be added in as an informative around um uh the council to continue to engage constructively with the parish council around opportunities for compensator um uh recreational space provision I
Don’t see any harm with that and I don’t think that would um would undermine the application if if approved but would be very um nervous about going any further than that the reasons that others have said um but on um on the whole more than happy to support the recommendation okay
Thank you councelor Waters just want to speak I think that was the um proposal I made about half an hour ago but never mind um just to say that um G was entirely correct when he did say that if you were to get or you were to insist on
Semi-mature trees uh it would increase the maintenance on site they’re not as easy to get established um especially if you’re want to get a more natural environment and include oak trees they are very susceptible much easier to plant those small and let them grow um this is going to get approved let
Let’s be honest um it shouldn’t be held up on on rounds like that I’m sure Steve’s under Steve’s aaces they will make a good job of the Landscaping the main thing to my mind is to make sure that it is protected in perpetuity because we don’t want it getting
Established and then in 10 years time somebody upgrading this thanks um we know I think we I think as supect everyone broadly agrees as you’ve already said I think the key is that we clear up what conditions and informatives are actually being taken forward here so uh the kind of Lifetime protection
And maintenance of the T of the trees as a condition Amendment to the condition that broadly supported I think yeah uh I have it down as a i I’d agree with councilor Fenton’s proposal around it being informative in terms of discussions with the parish council because I don’t think we can condition
That without having a piece of specific land is that supported as ter as it being informative um likewise uh we’ve discussed protection of t19 in terms of in formative is that is that broadly agreed in terms that true yeah uh and then I guess the more challenging one is around the planting
Scheme and the maturity of the trees um I decide on the uh informative approach but I would like to check that people are broadly in a in a support of that in terms of the outline need sorry sorry you can speak that informative on what in relation to
The trees uh this was around whether they need to be mature whether we’re asking for them to bring back a scheme of mature planting or whether we’re supporting the that they just take the scheme as it is okay so that no informative just take the scheme as is
Council of waters it might just be worth if we could work it in somewhere mentioning the point that Council of Assi raised about trying to screen the utilitarian buildings as as best as possible now whether that was just a wall you know Ivy or something planted up there yeah any
Thoughts to use best Endeavors to um screen as best as possible the utilitarian buildings from public view they they’ve designed the they’ve then we’ve got a brick pla um kiosk um as the alternative to the the the prefabricated metal clad chaos to tie into the the materials they’ve used
For the flood War so that’s why it’s designed as it is um and it will always be surrounded by handrails you can see just on there handrails green painted um um pipes to the pumps uh that being said it’s it’s in your hands if you if you if you want them to
Uh to um want to put a condition on saying not withstanding the materials approved that they come back with a scheme showing something different I don’t from my own perspective I don’t want to get into the position of us without there being massive consensus on this being required this being
Something that we get into the area of conditioning changes to schemes we’ve got to come up so uh unless someone says otherwise I’d propose that we we don’t take that forward as a condition unless anyone feels strongly otherwise no okay um i’ we’ve had multiple people speaking
Support I think I’m happy to take that look formal propose second six I want to propose oh councelor Melly sorry not seen yet sorry chair I sorry I know I’ve already brought it up but um before we decide exactly what we’re voting on I just wanted to be absolutely sure that
By not conditioning when the temporary construction compound Sor Ends by um we’re not leaving permanent you know in perpetuity planning permission to drive vehicles onto the site just because the permission goes with the site not the applicant it’s a public site I don’t want in the future someone to drive on
And you know technically there’s Planning Commission that there is a route there to drive on okay um well I I probably say that I don’t think that’s necessary but you can or rather we can uh we could tighten up that condition for get now which one it was
Um condition 11 to to refer to the removal of the of the construction compound and the um and and and the road yeah access to the site it is it will become part of the for Parish Council Recreation ground so they will have management of it thereafter I
Assume yeah just just as long as there plan commission to drive vehicles along that route from the East here okay um sorry seeking a uh proposer sorry for moving up a recommendation um this sorry you’ve already done it sorry confusing yeah you’ve proposed it and the second please yeah Council H thank you
Um so uh have a recommendation to approve uh we have the conditions in the report as amended by the table update um regarding the archaeology conditions uh condition six um uh just clarify condition I think we said that uh we can’t consult with the battlefield uh society and other other
Um other bodies we can’t consult with them uh it’s just they can’t be named in the condition as being party to the approval only the local planning Authority can approve um but then we have an informative to to try and push that consultation onto the applicant uh
In terms of um what what we what we get as a submission uh so then then we have uh condition 11 amended to um remove the 10year uh period um and replace it for the lifetime of the development um there was also uh following that there was the alteration
To further alteration to condition 11 uh regarding the removal of the uh the temp temporary construction um compound and Road uh then there was the informative to urge the um uh the retention of tre c19 uh and then informative uh for the council’s applicant to engage with for of Parish Council
Regarding uh compensatory public open space say yeah okay okay uh in that case um can I see those who are in favor of voting for the office of recommendation with those amendments okay that’s unanimous and application is approved um we’ll take a very short break so people can leave
Before the final application which will hopefully move through quickly hi welcome back um we will um pick this up for the final planning application uh evening which is item 4C the tramways club um we’re also joined by Jonathan Kenyan as the officer uh development management officer ready again yeah um thank you
Chair so this uh agenda item 4C is a planning application at the uh the now um bacon tramways club on Mill Street and uh proposes a demolition of the existing building and the erection of a residential building to form 35 apartments Associated landscaping and then public realm improvements to the
Adjacent rest Gardens following the demolition of the former traway Club so the uh what’s called the rest Gardens here is the the closed um St George’s uh churchard uh which is uh included within the red line boundary of the application and there are proposals which come to in
The presentation um to to do some um environmental Improvement works there so just go through the presentation so site plan on this there we go the site plan you can see hatched I think you can see that yeah hatched on the on the site plan that’s the outline of the existing uh building
On the site and then the the darker gray is a footprint of the of the proposed building uh site is within the uh Central historic cor Conservation Area there are um C church and it’s attached rectory is listed at grade two and uh the the Turpin grave within the
Churchard is also listed at grade two Google Street View image showing the extent of the site the list of church um Picadilly five story Hotel building and residential Apartments opposite on M Lane and uh with a padil frontage and then on George Street and this is a pill street car park
It’s the Tramway Club just see the stone workor of the the church building trees uh along the frontage along the Geor Street Frontage which we proposed to be retained another view of the club the residential uh three story residential there this is a view across the uh the the
Closed churchyard you just see the outline of the um of the traway club there and the uh the hotel building behind that is um that’s Mill Street just showing the relationship between those two um those two to uh the traway club the hotel and the residential buildings um and here’s a a photograph
And the Picadilly end showing the residential buildings opposite and then another view of the TR Club so uh the the the the traway club has uh is on three levels so a seller and lower Ground Bar level um the the principal ground floor level uh with its function rooms and uh ancillary uh
Facilities um there’s an upper floor Lounge Bar and the double height that that function room had a double height space and they as existing elevations so the proposed site plan as I said 35 uh 35 apartments so this is the ground floor plan sorry that’s the site plan uh this is
The basement floor plan with um uh cycle storage and bin storage proposed ground floor plan uh a typical Upper Floor and then a proposed fourth floor so two of the flats would be duplex uh I’ll show how that works in the elevations uh so on uh fronting George
Street uh the she three story with a A Man story above this block so that the the I guess the foremost the forward most part of the block towards George Street and the the top end of Mill Street a three story Shear with a with with the mans side
Above uh slightly different um elevational treatment uh where it deuts the hotel building further down L Street then that’s the back of that those the top of those duplex Flats I mentioned before just in a in a roof further roof level so where the description talks about five stories it’s it’s really um
Restricted to that area there adjacent to the hotel proposed sections so this shows the relationship with the listed St George’s Church and the rectory and then the relationship with the properties on the other side of M Street landscape master plan uh so this in this shows the alterations that have
Been proposed to the to the former churchyard I’ll have a level access at the moment it’s stepped access into the garden so provision of a levels access um are more usable at the moment the path is bark chips so this would give a a more usable uh path and then some tree
Planting and other plantings to to generally um tidy the area up where necessary oops okay I want to see any more there’s no one there any like to see any more of the drawings um I’ll take it back to the can I see a closer up image of the ground
Floor I was just look basement floor sorry I was looking at the AR cycle arrangements before difficult to say on the plans it’s so difficult to see I’m afraid so this is accessed by uh platform lift or a lift down uh from ground floor level just to explain so where the where the
Hand is hovering over at the moment where it’s fainted out that’s where there would be space for oversiz longer Cycles so the access into that basement has all been sized appropriately so if we look at the ltn 120 guidance on oversized cycle Dimensions they they fit
In the lift and they can maneuver into those oversized areas there um which provides up to four spaces so that’s over and above the 5% guidance Target for oversized of an overall provision so from George Street is this sorry there’s this pedestrian gates and an access and then the lift is in here
And that will also be the bin access is also there downstairs or through that through that thank you any other questions on plans no okay we’ll move on to public part oh sorry got update thank you sorry so the the update’s been circulated in the in the handouts there’s an additional
Representation for from the Civic trust we received on Monday um and there is a proposed amendment to the Landscaping condition which I can quickly run you through so the Civic trust advised a welcoming principle Redevelopment of the site and opportunity to remove a delated building and improve public ran Street skate but
They did raise a few issues which they have with the application they referred to the the massing and the height of it said it was challenging for its context especially they referred to the top floor and how that would be viewed in context with the churchard they made reference to the uh
Angular building form um and the considerable use of flat Roofing which they feel is odds with the universal use of pitched roofed buildings nearby and in terms of the use they did say that the inclusion of affordable housing would be preferred and they would object to they would object if the
Use was for short-term holiday lights in terms of the Landscaping um as we showed you on the presentation earlier the the proposed drawings include the um the graveyard area and we’ve sought some feedback from our public realm team as they’d be responsible for the maintenance of that
Area over its lifetime going forward and the advice that we got back from them is that they’d very much welcome the improved access arrangements and the hard Landscaping measures um but they pic they identified there was quite a lot of Wildflower planting that isn’t something that they’d be able to
Maintain as a council so that’s informed our proposed amendment to condition 22 which allows us to approve a a soft Landscaping scheme and for us to be satisfied essentially that that’s been installed appropriately before the council becomes responsible for its maintenance going forward thank you counc
R thank you chair is there a condition about all of the elects and if not can we put one in no there isn’t um we this we take the view that um the the the uses of the holiday L um as know like a multiple L frequent turnover let
Is usually a a change of use so this was um this planning application is proposing um residential accommodation under C3 of the of the use classes order um then holiday introducing holiday lets would be a material change of use it’s not straightforward because there’s nothing in planning legislation that
Says it is it’s sort of an amalgam of um case law and appeal decisions that’s put us in that uh in that position so we would say you’d probably need a planning application to uh to to change the use once planning permission have been granted thanks um okay we now moving public
Participation um the first Speaker who I’ll call up is Margaret rollinson uh in objection uh Margaret if you join if you just want to make sure that the microphone’s on so just uh there should be a b button to press there yeah thank you um and you’ve got
Three minutes to speak so so just start when you’re ready um section 72 of the planning act 1990 requires the local authority to pay special attention to any proposed development in a conservation area in order to preserve and enhance its character and appearance the 2011 appraisal stated that any new buildings
Should respect the current building scale block dimensions and local Heights and this proposal development respect to none of those development would be in the central Heritage core Conservation area which consists primarily of two and three story Residential Properties the size and scale of this building would overshadow neighboring properties and L
Mean loss of Outlook and be totally out of character the need to protect this area was recognized by the planning department when the application for the Picadilly Plaza project was made the developers were told that unless they restricted the height of the properties fronting onto George Street and those
Facing the tramways club at the upper end of Mill Street to three stories then Planning Commission would be refused because they would not be complying with the requirements of a development in the conservation area I’d like to refer you to the two drawing rings I added to the document
List on the 30th of October one is the sectional drawing provided by the developers which includes outlines of the six-story hotel and the five-story part of taga house that fronts on Picadilly these two buildings are not relevant to this application but what the outlines do serve to do is detract
Attention from the two relevant buildings I.E the existing and proposed properties on Mill Street the second drawing has had the outlines removed and this gives a much clearer picture of the relative Heights of these two properties and the negative and adverse impact that this is going to have on the local
Area I know councilor Melly and councelor Clark have seen these properties seen these photographs if it’s not possible to get them up and you would like to see them I have got paper copies parking is an absolute nightmare in the area need way at strips um provision 35
New properties are only going to aggravate the problem the PE street car park is full most days the surrounding area is parking permit only a scheme that we’re excluded from as will the new development and although there are 35 properties they comprise one two and three bedroom properties in uh
Developments so with a potent ual increase of 51 people with transport needs it’s the whole situation there parking situation is going to be made much much worse that’s it oh thank you perfectly on time pitch and clock um I have to just just so to be
Clear you you won’t be able to share the photographs but um sorry just you won’t be able to share the photographs with the committee they’re not able to be Shar even though they’re on the docu I thought if they were on the document I was told if they were on the
Document list then it was possible to do that I wasn’t I wasn’t allowed to hand in things sorry presentation is put together by don’t show what’s on in um we don’t show okaying yeah okay I think that I think the view is that they aren’t able to be
Shared just because of I think they need shared they’ have needed to be shared with us before the meeting so that we could just sign off sorry um does anyone have any questions for the speaker yeah Council of waters first and well just querying what’s the difference between putting the photographs out and
Receiving these which I think we receive a good read I think the differen is that we receiv received those in good time and were able to check the documents before they’re circulated around the table would be my answer to that um Council offending CH chair we’ve had photographs pass around planning
Committees forever well but that’s only if they’ve been seen beforehand no yeah no well and if they haven’t then that shouldn’t have happened I don’t know I just start setting the incorrect rule Council Fenton do you have a question sorry um just picking up the point you raised about parking so I understand
That the way the system works whereby where new developments uh are constructed those residents do not have right of entry into the existing residents parking scheme um so is a problem that um new development are being sold on the basis of um the availability of on street
Parking that doesn’t exist or I’m trying to understand what residents expectations are from you know from developments that have been uh built nearby recently in terms of um isn’t isn’t other residents understand what they’re getting when they move into a city center area without designated parking I wondered
How it works in practice from your your perspective yes um one of the major difficulties getting access to Tradesmen we can’t guarantee they’re going to be able to park somewhere when they arrive and trying to find someone who’s prepared to come drop off the things go and find a parking place come
Back do the job go back get the it’s just not going to happen um and if these these properties are supposedly got the cycle provision in the basement I’m not sure how many people are going to be able to deal with just cycling as the method of Transport there things you
Can’t do on cyc you can’t get a weeks shocking there’s all sorts of things they are I think within comparatively short time there’s going to be requests um that they’re going to want cars and that going to mean they’re going to be wanting to park in that area which is
Already incredibly difficult and it’s just going to exacerbate the whole problem uh thanks I can’t see any further questions so thank you for time speaking um next up we have uh councilors Melly and councelor Clark speaking as World counselors um thank you chair um yes as Ward
Counselors we’ve got a lot of concerns about these designs along with local residents and the MP and the Civic trust and Guild Hall planning panel uh there’s lots of grounds for our objections and that we just can’t cover in three minutes um but we’re happy to answer questions and our objection is
Summarized on pages 139 and 140 of our report so if you’ve read that we’ll just focus on a couple of points if you want to ask us about anything else that’s fine um in addition to what we’ve already put in our objection um I just wanted to highlight that this application needs to
Be viewed in the setting of the city walls and the walmgate residential area um because that’s the area that it’s actually a part of um yes it’s it’s near Picadilly but it’s not on Picadilly um it’s part of a well established residential area of Wate um and so it
It’s in it’s in the setting of leadmill Lane and Hope Street and George Street which is all yeah a well established and quite interesting residential area with a long history including um of Irish immigration and that sort of thing um this site is as close to the city walls
As it is to pilly um and I’m not sure that’s been that well reflected so far in how you’ve been shown the setting of the site um the main argument given in favor of this development is um housing provision and short of housing but seeing as this site isn’t going to be
Providing the affordable housing that it should um and given that the design you know the location the size the design are all quite well suited for short-term holiday lets and there’s no condition um suggested to prevent that there’s no guarantee that this would actually provide any housing at all um officers
Mentioned National planning law um that’s likely to have changed by the time this is built it’s currently being reviewed by government there needs to be a spec if you are minded to approve this there needs to be a specific condition so that if they are used a short-term
Holiday lets it’s in a clear breach of planning planning conditions not some law which may or may not um exist in the future um do you want to yeah thanks um so there’s a couple of things that we wanted to highlight um the first was about oh from my perspective what I’m
Going to talk about is the cycle storage and secondly about the roof as well so um the cycle storage is in the basement area um so it’s uh in the basement along with the bins and the plant equipment and we don’t think that is is very suitable and easily accessible um for
The residents trying to get their Cycles out there’s quite a lot of maneuvering a lot of toing and throwing with their bikes and through narrow corridors in quite clant conditions um and then into a lift uh to take the bike upstairs and you have to go forward or back um it’s
Not uh EAS I would say it’s not it’s not e the most easiest of ways of of getting your bike in and out and May in fact prevent people from wanting to use their Cycles given the situation I mean we welcome um the cargo bikes the the
Increase in dimensions of a couple of the spaces for cargo bikes but again we would question whether the the space has been has been increased adequately and certainly in terms of the way you have to use the lifts whe those Dimensions would be adequate as well um and the
Thing the second thing I wanted to highlight was regarding the roof and what the Civic Trust of submitted in terms of the fact that um the roof for the proposed roof the manside roofing does not the flat Roofing Etc it’s not really is not really typical of the
Roofscape the the roofscape in that part of the um of the of the city and the surrounding areas thank you oh we on three minutes yeah that’s the three minutes that’s okay sorry I don’t if there is anything you wanted to sum up on but that is that is a three minut um
Does anyone have any questions for the the W councilors uh on this one um can you oh sorry councelor Fenton yes uh just in relation to the proposals for the rest Garden um is that something you think would be would be welcomed other aspects of what’s proposed that you think could
Potentially be improved it’s useful to understand what what your thoughts are on that please um I’m in favor of the principle of improving um that public space there is antisocial behavior that goes on there and there is the space isn’t particularly well used at the moment it’s obviously valuable to the
Community um but it’s mostly used for walking dogs that sort of thing um any Improvement to public realm is is very welcome especially in such a highly populated area where there’s very limited outdoor Green Space we want it to be as good as possible but I’m not sure it’s really adequately adequately
Conditioned to actually happen and then it’s the council who needs to maintain it in perpetuity and it hasn’t been the designs haven’t been done with any consultation with local residents or local counselors we’ve checked with previous counselors as well that there’s a few parts in the ward that we’re
Trying to improve and we’re coming up against what can you do that doesn’t need long-term maintenance and that can be affordable in the future and that residents want and none of that thought seems to have gone into this and we’ve already heard about you know seasonal planting and wild flowers and that sort
Of thing which need long-term maintenance and that is there are they being yeah this application would leave that being done either not being done at all because it’s not adequately conditioned in my view or being done at public expense not at the expense of the developer um yeah it should have been
Designed with residents in mind and in consultation with residents and it hasn’t been thanks I think that’s all all the questions that I can see so if you want to take a seat okay uh don’t think the next speaker is here so we’ll move on to uh Richard France speaking in support of
The application um there’s also the uh architect believe on the hand to answer questions if if required but they’ll join when they need to good evening my name is Richard France and I’m the managing director of the oakgate group the owners and developers of the site since
1995 oate has invested heavily in York over 250 million pound is currently leading with the council and York College the construction skills partnership following the decision by the members of the former Tramway Club to sell due to rapidly declining membership and viability we acquired the site at competitive T tender in
2018 since our pre-application request in 2019 we have collaborated closely with Council officers working out the scheme we have Incorporated all their required changes and amendments and the result is the recommended proposal before you today we initially looked at different uses on the site but it was suggested that a residential scheme
Would help meet the city’s acute housing needs as it was the most appropriate use given the site’s location in a residential area officers officers also advised on the scale and massing of the development to ensure that the dominance of St George’s Church was not compromised subsequently we reduced the height and
Massing of the original proposal building and elevational treatments were also amended accordingly after submitting our application planning application in 2021 dialogue continued with officers resulting in further reduction of the development footprint by reciting it further back from the boundary than the existing buildings emphasizing and ensuring that the trees in the rest
Garden would be unharmed we met with the council’s Landscaping tree officers and local volunteers of the rest Gardens and as a result have produced proposals that will significantly improve both this important local amenity for residents and Dick turpin’s grave which is a feature of the York tour tourist experience the improvements of the
Gardens will come both directly in terms of much needed investment and also indirectly in terms of the natural surveillance from the new apartments which will help to alleviate some of the current antisocial behavior problems the scheme has been sensitively designed to avoid being harmful to the character and appearance of the
Conservation area and avoiding harm to the setting of The adjacent listed buildings resulting the council’s conservation officer having no objections to the scheme because of the extensive collaboration with officers we’ve arrived at a scheme that will provide 35 much needed new homes designed to exceed National internal
Space standards and for Council orl the dwellings provided will incorporate a provision within the leases prohibiting short-term lets including including Airbnb we are doing what we can to ensure these homes are for local people our approach on this application has to me to work with the council officers
Throughout and I hope you’ll agree with their conclusion and approve this proposal for much needed new homes in the city on one of the city’s most sustainable Brownfield sites thank you very much councilor Fenton please uh thank you in terms of the rest Garden we’ve heard that the investment in that
Space is welcome because it it it certainly would would benefit from some investment in so in terms of the plans that have been arrived at there’s a suggested amended condition um with a view to the council agreeing exactly what the uh the the layout would consist of in terms of usability for
Residents and and ease of maintenance for the council um so is is that a condition you would be content with and what what else can you offer in terms of support for the council in relation to the long-term maintenance of that space because it will cost money right um we
Would be more than happy and I can I can understand you know planting wild flowers uh might be a greater maintenance problem than anything else else but I’m sure we can come to an agreement as to what should be planted um and uh that we haven’t got a problem
With that we quite happen to have that conditioned uh in that respect secondly uh we have also um looked obviously we would be uh putting so much money aside each year towards the maintenance of the site through the service charge small service charge from the uh uh from the
Apartments um and because they get the benefit as well uh from overlooking it um and that is very important I mean the cost of doing the works on the rest Garden is we estimate up to about £100,000 which is a substantial amount we’ve also inquired uh because this is a
Absolutely ideal uh thing that the national lottery Heritage fund would uh be quite Keen to assist with um and we can’t apply for it you’ve got to have planning permission uh first of all and normally the council will apply for it together with the developer and that is something
Obviously we would like to take forward I’ve got I’ve got all the the documents to do it it’s just that I can’t do it at the moment got planning permission so that we would see as another uh great benefit because either trying to get a
Lump some that could be uh uh anned over a period of time uh to allow for the the maintenance but once we’ve done the initial Works maintenance it we’ look to do you know maintenance should not be as costly and of course at the moment you got volunteers doing
It counc that one again so different thanks for answer a different question on um Financial viability so the the report sets out details of the financial viability assessment that was undertaken and what the outcome of that was which suggests the 35632 contribution um to for offsite affordable housing um there’s a
Suggestion in the report that upon completion of the development that that valuation is is reviewed um to see whether there’s any any scope for for increasing the contribution towards affordable housing is that something you have any you have a problem with no we we agreed to it
Initially and that I haven’t got a problem with that I mean what I would say is of course we went through a very extensive process bear in mind we started this we bought it in 2018 uh 2019 um and it’s that’s four or five years ago and in that time
Building costs have increased dramatically I mean and I mean 50 60% and we actually invisage we would most probably have a certain amount of affordable there Circa three to five affordable units uh But as time went on uh the the costs Rose the building got smaller the
Footprint got smaller and we’ve ended up with what we’ve got it was all then put forward to the uh DVS and the DVS then got independent uh cost Consultants who obviously uh adhered to uh the same the same figures that we were using roughly and hence the the figure came up as it
Is now so U the viability was shown to be uh uh as as proposed but we haven’t got a problem in you know having it revalu that’s not that’s not a problem um got a couple of quick questions um the the bike storage the location of the bike storage obviously
The planning policy in York is very firmly in favor of your bikes being as easily accessible as possible from the having try developed in New York before uh that’s a very stringent thing that we put forward as policy but the location of the bike stores in this are
Downstairs and Access Fire lift um which which isn’t probably the easiest way to do it normally in a block of flats you’d have some way to be able to cycle in and out of the building without having to go through this I just wondered why why why
Those design choices have been made I guess uh now then I’m not uh terribly expert on bike stores but Sue spling our architect is so I’ll let her to answer your question might worked yes that might Works doesn’t it um obviously we as you highlighted at the start the traway club has an
Existing basement um and obviously we are demolishing everything above ground but we’re looking to reuse the basement we’ve been through extensive dialogue with highways about the location of the cycle store we’ve actually York have got a very detailed guide on accessibility where you’ve got tracking for bikes we’ve actually done individual stud
Studies on being able to move into the lift uh pull out of the lift move into the cycle store to demonstrate to highways because we’re very thorough on this that the cycle store will actually work and we’ve actually extended the lift is longer than York’s guidance it
Suggests 2 meters and the lift’s 2.4 so we’re trying to give as much room as possible obviously there is a push to be um to have more housing so we’ve reused that basement space making it useful for cycling making sure it’s fully accessible in line with York’s guidance
And we wanted to make sure we had housing at ground floor because then we’ve got natural surveillance over Mill Street and over the rest Gardens from a a positive Street skate point of view does that answer the question yeah that’s helpful thank you um and and I guess one was um is
It kind of Strang of timing but there is a new local plan policy in terms of the kind of building use and it being marketed for Community use I wonder whether there had been any exploration of community use for the site during the process that was always looked beyond as
Residential when we started as I said when we started the uh pre-application process we initially looked at a lot of different uses including uh from memory boutique hotels um Senior Living because I was thinking for myself I think um and another other opportunities and we were we were it was
Suggested to US during the pre-application meeting that residential would be the right thing to do since there was a such a critical shortage and it was basically a residential area so we said well that’s really what you want what’s the point of fighting against you so um that’s that’s where we went along
Okay thank you um councilor Waters please just on that point it it does seem rather bizarre that you were encouraged into senior living because presumably those occupants would have been less likely to have owned cars um just wonder what your proposals at the moment would be to discourage future
Occupants from earning cars would the marketting be around there are no parking spaces associated with this development um I think well it it will be the whole thing’s been the values have been worked on the basis there’s no no car parking spaces I mean in our original original plans I’m just coming
Back to me now that we had about four or eight uh tow houses with car parking underground and it was like a a little Enclave you know facing Sou southwards in more you um but that that seemed a bit OT for this particular part of the
Uh part of the world and uh I don’t think the what what you’re looking for in ter I mean car parking is very emotional I mean we actually wanted to put some car parking onto George Street opposite the church because of course there’s always been that run through and
We said if we can’t do that can we just you have it for residents be able to put you having Amazon Vans put just parking there and delivering stuff and all this sort of stuff and we’ve been told just cannot have it it was we were told by
The highways just there was no way they wanted uh they wanted any car parking around there so we reluctantly agreed and put it into bikes so just to clarify that if these properties are marketed there will be marketers as having no car par yeah we
We’ve had to value that as well I mean that’s that is absolutely right it’s uh and we did we did as you know we did stoneboat house and uh there’s some car parking there but there’s not car parking for everybody and it’s the only very rich people at the very top’ got
Two car parking so uh but no it’s marketed with no no car parking and highways have specifically confirmed sorry highways have specifically confirmed that um because it as I said the r18 plan up earlier that the residents won’t be eligible for permit parking obviously they’d have to seat their own parking
Spaces if they wanted to pay for a space somewhere but we’re seeing it as Architects we’re seeing the push in any City Center to move away from encouraging people to to own cars and I find a lot of our own uh younger people students uh graduates haven’t even
Learned to drive now cuz they’re they’re moving towards living in City centers and that’s what we should be encouraging um but I understand the concern but we have gone through it with highways so therefore we we will not be eligible for residence passes does does that answer the
Question thank you I can’t see any further questions at this time so if you wants to take a seat thank you very much um does anyone have any questions yeah counil holia questions for offices move on uh on the the viability um suppose I’m just interested how the hierarchy of
Where the money goes to is determined necessarily that I disagree with how the money’s been allocated but just sort of Education gets all its allocation I guess open space and Sport do and then it sort of what’s left is affordable housing is that sort of set out
Somewhere um we discussed this yes say jonan so you can answer this one think that the reason why the affordable housing is typically the one that suffers when viability is an issue is because um in terms of our policies our affordable housing Target our targets and they’re what we aspire
To whereas the other items that we’ve got in the list of planning obligations are typically their infrastructure and things that are SE to be directly necessary to support the development so they can’t be compromised so as an example if we’re approving a residential development potentially bringing more
Children into the area so we’re putting a a requirement on the schools to accommodate more children so we have to pay for those extra places uh whereas the affordable housing is not it’s not an issue we’re making any worse as such by not meeting the targets it’s just this scheme isn’t
Contributing to meeting what the local plan looks to achieve in terms of the housing targets for affordable housing over the plan period okay thank you uh and the viability review mechanism can say a bit about how that works does it I mean does it effectively claw back any additional kind of profit
Made on the scheme above what’s in the assessment at the moment um and then sort of puts that to affordable housing until the point that they’ve kind of met the policy requirements and then they can kind of keep anything above that or the the guidance in the National planning guidance about the review
Mechanisms is that they need to be as firstly as simple as possible but they also need to be fair so they would generally we would decide with the developer as to which of the headline inputs we would capture so the the profit in the scheme if if by the time
The houses are built and that profit is higher then it’s it tends to be agreed as part of the appraisal that that does go come back towards affordable housing but in terms of being reasonable we would normally also have to accept that we have to look at the build costs as
Well because they’re also subject to change and movable so that is another factor that could change by the time the scheme if it’s built sort of within a reasonable time frame as to when the appraisal was done then they’re not necessarily going to change but if if
The scheme not built for three years it’s perfectly reasonable that we look at the build costs again and they could go either way they might even come down it’s unlikely but they could go up or down so they they tend to be the two items that we’d look at when we readed
The appraisal what the hous is sell for and what the build costs are and you say if there’s if there’s more money in the scheme at the end of the day then that would come back to the council as a commuted sum towards affordable housing okay thank you any other
Questions no uh that case we’ll move into discussion on the item if anyone like to start us off Council Fenton thank you uh thank you chair I think it’s been helpful through the discussion and questions some of the certainly some of the issues that um cly I picked up on on
The site visit and having heard to the public speakers have been have been addressed in relation to plans for the maintenance of the well the the design and maintenance of the the rest gard and I think it was perhaps a missed opportunity missed opportunity not to have undertaken more extensive local
Consultation before um the application was was finalized but I think there is an opportunity now and if the amended condition is approved to make sure that that is designed in a way that um meets a needs of local residents well of new residents and and existing residents um
And doesn’t provide doesn’t um create a unsustainable financial burden on the council but I welcome the commitment to make an annual Financial contribution from the um service charges that the new residents would would pay um welcome the um words from the applicant around um trying trying to prevent this development becoming a short-term
Holiday Le um development which I think is something that clearly is a concern because we’re weighing up the the the balance here between the provision of um new housing in a sustainable location um and as the the architect mentioned that’s exactly the kind of accommodation that we we want to provide and that
There is a market for um it’s it’s obviously the the potential benefits are undermined if that if that housing in reality is not available to the um the people who need it um so I’m I’m assured by what I’ve what I’ve what I’ve um what I’ve heard in terms of
The the visual impacts I think the fact that the development steps up away from St George’s Church um clearly sort reduces the um the harm to the the setting of St George’s Church um I know from being that area on on the side of the street opposite the church it it
There are a number of um quite large uh residential developments that do um that over time have come to um impact on the setting of the church um I don’t believe that this development would have a um um an unacceptable impact on on the setting of the of the church but it’s
It’s it is right that that is is given proper consideration um so I’m I’m asking stand and and inclined to um support the officer recommendation anyone likes to add anything um guess from from my perspective there’s a lot a lot of about the scheme that I don’t support in some ways I mean
Obviously the the viability is an argument and it’s been through a district valuation process but the reality of building inside the city walls deliver affordable housing in a variety of parts of the country of much lower values than the center of York so I don’t know if it’s while while the
Process is the process it’s not something I’m massively comfortable with and it offers a lot less public benefit by not providing affordable housing contribution but that is that is what we’re presented with and and have to make the decision uh on likewise I don’t think the cycle parking is
Is good the fact that there’s had to be tracking surveys done as a the approach should be to try and provide the best possible option not to have to argue why that option is acceptable because it fits with what you’re trying to achieve and likewise the lack of disability
Parking is under provision is not supportive of the kind of of anyone living in that Community you’ve got lifting it’s not it’s not a great approach to how you develop a scheme to be honest in in some of those parts some of those key elements but um I think I
Think for me I mean I get get the impression that you know there is a lot about the scheme that’s acceptable and obviously the additional housing is you know would be a positive for the en um I think an additional condition to tighten it up around uh shortterm lets
Is really important because I don’t think the policy the planning policy is there right now for managing individual leas hold Apartments maybe for the whole block but for individual leaseholders I think it’s important that there’s a bit more control on there and that’s clarified so I’d be supportive of adding
A condition around that and the reasoning for that being is that we’ve lost a significant amount of private rental homes in the city due to the increase of airbnbs that’s been a major impact on the amount of private reps we have and on uh standard housing as well
So I think that’s really important that we put that in um if other people are supportive but I’d obviously ask the views of yourselves as committee members before we put something like that on the on it Council Awards and is it worth requiring an informative just to
Um well you can’t enforce it but the council would advise that it would um seek to see uh the marketing of the properties to Future occupants um fully appraised of the parking situation um active discouragement for people actually owning cars that were moving in there you can guess the type of wording
But and I realize it can’t be anything stronger than an informative but it might allay some of the fears of local residents okay yeah I would support that um Council fendon yeah in terms of the suggestion of having a condition around um reducing the risk of short-term holiday LS I mean I suppose
I’ welcome Gareth said advice as to what we reasonably can um obviously we’ve heard the the the statement from the applicant which is obviously welcome but um it’d be helpful to understand how in terms of a condition how we can we can kind of embed that
Reasonably I’m not sure I can I don’t recall as imposing Hudson qued that’s a big I can’t I can’t recall as imposing a a a similar condition um certainly on schemes at the the smaller end of uh of the development scale and that’s that’s generally been because we if we’re granting permission for
C3 uh dwellings our view is that um frequent turnover holiday lets rather than just someone buying as a weekend in place for themselves is a material change of use but we are conscious that we get we do get thought on that when we try and
Enforce that uh that view uh but um I think the weight of evidence is generally that is the case um we don’t have a we don’t have a policy that seeks that sort of thing in the local plan or the emerging local plan so I think what makes it reasonable
Or if if members feel it’s necessary is the reason behind it and and that has to be specific to this building why what why why in this particular case do we feel that this that that type of condition is is uh is necessary on a you know a 35 apartment
Development in the city center why what makes this particular Development Special that it should not special that’s the wrong word uh why should that requirement be imposed on this particular development when it hasn’t been on others there might well be an evolving process where in the future when perhaps
The legislation changes that we move forward onto that but um at the moment it’s not been something that we have we have done um but I’m conscious that has put that just put a burden on our planning enforcement colleagues because we end up chasing our tals on Final nor authorized changes of
VI thought we have applied it on homes previously dwellings see we we we may have um I I I doubt whether that would be a for part of the recommendation and I I can’t I can’t recall where we’ve done it before okay we can’t it’s it’s a case of having having the
Justification yeah yeah yeah having the justification to prove that it’s necessary and reasonable to do so for that building for that building yes that location yeah I don’t think I can um uh as would anyone like to find anything else in terms of discussion or else I
Guess at this page I’d be asking someone if they’re happy to uh formally propose and second what you could do is put an informative on uh to uh to set out the council’s view uh that um use as a holiday let would uh constitute a material change of views that require planing
Permission yeah I mean I would do that yeah I would i’ support that I don’t think thanks okay propose the council happy to propose with the amended condition and the other things yeah thank you yeah uh and anyone second sorry uh Council oral second
Um yeah in that case G can you take us through the recommendation so recommendation uh on as per page2 uh onwards of the agenda uh we tabled the amendment condition 22 uh as a recommend um the uh additional informative and suggested regarding the uh the sighting outside the resident parking Zone and
For that to be drawn to um a potential p attention through marketing there’s a holiday that’s informative um rate the the maintenance contribution that was raised um that’s not in the recommendation it’s not something that’s been um negotiated now there is a um on 153 there is the um
Roman two which talks about the head of planning and development services given delegated to authority to finalize the terms and details of the section 106 agreement that wouldn’t normally involveed inserting something new but if members uh through this decision process would like us to uh to explore that more
Into the main contribution hearing what the applicant says we can we can cover that safely I believe yeah I think that would be okay U is that agreed I think that would be important that’s been discussed today I think that’s captured yeah with that thank
You thank you um can I see those who are in favor uh for moving the office recommendation as it stands please uh and those who are against and those who have stay so that has been approved and the officer recommendation is moved and the application is approved um we have one
More short item but if you just want to make your way out that’s fine we can just give you a quick pause before we go welcome back um we have uh a final short item which is right uh which is foro planning appeal performance and decisions um there’s
Short report if there’s anything you want to mention specifically on this item um it’s the same thing I say every time it comes really that we um we we are we’re we’re losing more appeals than we used to and our appear appeal performance is uh percentage allowed is
More than the average uh for England which stands at something like 29% it’s not quite as bad as it it appears on table one and table two because um uh not being a statistician I just include uh all the uh all the appeals and all the decisions whereas the planning
Inspectorates um returns don’t include uh some of ones some of the decisions that we do include uh so it’s not if you saw if you saw um the the cyc performance in the pins um tables when they eventually get uh produced they they wouldn’t be the same as what’s
Produced here uh but what is taken from from the planning uh planning inspectorate and the department of leveling up is in in um paragraph six which is this uh this assessment of uh quality criteria uh which takes appeals overturned set against all the decisions the council makes on all applications
And uh we are you know we’re we’re well below uh any assessment that would put us in in in line to be considered to be standards Authority on on that uh in that respect uh which is um which is always good uh otherwise i’ happy to take questions on on anything
Any councelor councelor Waters Gareth um I just wonder if you could confirm how many cases costs were awarded against the council I would imagine it’s quite easy to answer that um we have three cost three cost Awards against us um which were the first for uh for a
Very long period of time so since something like 2018 we’ve had four cost Awards over maybe that might be 300 appeal decisions uh but recently we’ve had we have had a couple um one on the four alls uh Pub on the a64 which was uh the inspector disagreed with our drainage uh
Requirements um and because of the length of time that it had taken for us for the drainage reement to be to to be uh agreed whilst an appeal was in progress he considered that to be unreasonable behavior thinking we could have just put a condition on in the first place
Um the other two uh Escape me for the moment but uh yeah we have we have it a couple we’ve looked at why they’ve been imposed and we you know try and impose some more control measures to make sure that they they they don’t happen yeah well thanks for that
You you surprised me I thought it would have been a big zero but uh yeah was a big zero very interesting until recently yeah any other questions no I can’t see so thank you for that g um and there’s no urgent business so we’ll cause me to a close there thank you