►
From YouTube: Planning Committee, 14 March 2018
Description
AGENDA (To view individual agenda items click on the links below)
1. Declarations of Interest 00:04:55
2. Minutes 00:05:43
3. Public Participation 00:05:54
4. Plans List 00:05:58
a) Horwell Brothers Ltd Coal Yard, 11 Mansfield Street, York [17/02702/FULM] 00:06:06
b) New Earswick Sports Club, White Rose Avenue, New Earswick, York [17/02835/FUL] 00:35:53
For full agenda, attendance details and supporting documents visit:
http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=132&MId=9939
A
Okay,
if
everybody's
ready
we'll
make
a
start
of
the
planning
committee
meeting
of
Wednesday
the
14th
of
March
in
terms
of
housekeeping
you
leaving
Tony
in
terms
of
housekeeping,
if
I
can
ask
everybody
to
make
sure
their
mobile
phones
are
turned
off
or
too
silent
and
I
suspect
everybody
in
the
room
knows
what
a
toilets
are,
what
happens
in
terms
of
the
fire
drill
I
haven't
received?
Any
apologies
have
any
of
you
heard.
Yes,.
A
B
Dotty
Thank
You,
chair
out
declare
a
personal
but
not
prejudicial
interest
in
item
4b
right
into
new
is
which
sports
club
in
that
I'm
loosely
acquainted
with
the
applicants.
Although
it's
not
in
any
business
relationship,
happens
to
live
in
my
ward,
but
there's
not
any
relationship.
I,
don't
believe,
there's
anything
in
prejudicial
interest
enough.
If
I
have
asked
for
confirmation
that
now.
A
A
A
F
So
this
is
a
rearrangement
of
the
top
floor
from
studios
to
clusters,
an
additional
studio
rooms
on
the
top
floor,
the
second
building
minor
design,
changes
to
the
top
floor
and
the
main
building
increased
in
height
to
raise
the
internal
ground
floor
level
to
provide
an
under
craft
which
makes
the
most
up
to
date
Environment
Agency's
requirements.
Since
the
report
was
completed,
amended
plans
have
been
submitted
to
identify
areas
of
adopted
highway
to
allow
for
turning
of
service
vehicles
and
an
increase
in
height
in
the
second
building
to
accommodate
to
tear
cycles
and
that's
outlined.
F
G
F
Plans
show
five
car
parking
spaces
to
be
provided,
so
that's
a
bare
minimum,
its
student
accommodation,
so
we
wouldn't
really
expect
to
have
any
service
that
was
on
the
approved
scheme
as
well.
So
it's
consistent
from
both
schemes,
but
we
have
increased
number
of
cycle
parking
spaces
to
cooperate
with
to
coordinate
with
the
actual
increase
in
the
number
of
units
on
site.
H
The
the
theme
of
of
parking
and
I'm
not
familiar
with
oh,
there
are
parking
restrictions
at
the
moment
in
in
maths,
Hill
Street,
but
if
there's
a
need
to
extend
to
maintain
safe
access
as
a
result
of
you
know,
students
coming
with
cars
is
that
provided
for
is
a
to
be
funded
out
by
the
developer.
Is
there
somewhere
in
the
conditions
that
they
should
pay
for
any
additional
parking
restrictions
and
might
be
needed.
I
C
C
F
The
main
difference
between
this
application
and
the
previous
application
is
an
increase
in
height
of
1
meter.
Approximately
and
the
same
view
is
taken
that
it
probably
would
not
have
an
impact
on
any
historic
views
in
there
and
that
the
views
would
not
be
interrupted
if
there
are
any
in
the
locality.
So.
E
More
generally,
we
don't
have
any
without
having
policies
which
set
any
building
heights
within
the
city
who
have
a
general
bill.
We
have
a
general
policy
which
he
seeks
to
maintain
the
predominance
of
the
ministering
views.
We
have
various
viewing
corridors
to
the
minister
and
other
key
buildings
set
out
in
the
constellation
area
of
these
strike
core
Conservation
Area
appraisal,
but
this
particular
site
doesn't
impinge
on
any
of
those.
E
C
G
G
We
know
that
the
demographics
of
students
has
changed
and
to
expect
a
hundred
students
to
have
five
cars
parked
between
them
is
just
ridiculous.
Frankly,
I
have
students
living
practically
on
the
doorstep
of
York
University,
with
three
or
four
cars
in
a
six-bedroom,
so
I
have
concerns
as
to
where
these
cars
are
going
to
be
parked.
Are
they
going
to
be
parked
in
morrison's
or
Alford's?
Where
are
they
going
to
be?
Where
are
they
going
to
be
passed?
Are
they
going
to
be
blocking
the
hole
of
Mansfield,
Street
I.
A
H
We
do
want
to
encourage
students,
and
there
is
an
informative
in
here
that
says,
there
should
be
a
travel
plan
that
sets
out
how
the
developer
is
going
to
ensure
a
low
level
of
car
ownership.
I
think
it's
on
page
35
travel
plans
shall
contain
information
on
how
private
car
ownership
will
be
prevented
measures
to
prevent
occupants
parking
on
the
adjacent
streets
and
delivery
for
the
cycle
parking.
If
demand
requires
that's
only
an
informative,
though
so
I
think
we
should
have
something
which
is
stronger
than
that.
H
A
H
Plan
I
go
in
the
travel
plan.
The
question
is
about
funding
to
provide
for
traffic
regulation.
Orders
shouldn't
fall
onto
the
authorities,
costs
to
actually
have
to
institute
measures
once
it's
occupied.
If
it
then
transpires,
it's
caused
a
problem,
it
should
be
only
allocated
or
condition
that
says
if
parking
levels
increase
beyond
what
they
are
currently
on
Mansfield's
through
once
the
place
is
occupied,
that
the
developer
will
provide
the
funding
necessary
to
put
in
the
parking
restrictions
that
the
authority
feels
is
most
appropriate.
I
Think
it
is
I
think
it
is
a
fact
that,
in
spite
of
all
one's
pious
hopes
and
expressions
of
intent,
people
tend
to
if
they
can,
even
if
they
can't
tend
to
bring
a
car.
I
mean
one
of
the
issues
around
the
student
residents
in
down
off
navigation
Road,
where
there
are
significant
areas
of
student
accommodation
is
that
it
had
a
knock-on
impact
on
parking
opportunities
for
residents
and
caused
significant
distance
are
mination,
I,
say
in
the
area.
I
know
we
say
people
shouldn't
need
to
have
a
car.
I
Obviously
they
don't
need
to
have
a
car,
but
that
doesn't
stop
them
bringing
one
and
so
I
think
one
does
need
to
take
into
account
that
they
will
need
to
be
some
very
significant
regulation
around
that
site.
If
you're
not
going
to
get
student
parking
clocking
up,
not
just
Mansfield
Street
surrounding
areas
as
well.
B
A
question
for
the
officer
actually,
obviously
there's
an
existing
planning
approval
for
84
units
from
the
November
2016,
just
wondering
how
this
differs
in
terms
of
parking
provision
from
that
application
and
whether
there
are
any
significant
differences
in
the
conditions
for
conversations
around
the
travel
plan.
The.
F
F
J
Have
to
agree
I
think
it
is
ridiculous
about
the
amount
of
space
that's
been
allowed
for
cars,
because,
although
we
want
to
be
altruistic
about
it,
people
do
have
cars
and
it
causes
difficulties
in
other
areas
in
respect
of
money
that
may
be
needed
for
a
condition.
Could
that
not
be
covered
by
section
106
agreement.
E
C
C
Silence
is
off
so
cat
paw
silence,
if
not
the
bit,
that
I
want
you
to
look
at,
which
is
the
part
about
this,
this
travel
plan
and
how
are
you
going
to
get
people
out
of
their
cars?
How
what
has
been
the
discussions
about
crossing
the
road
at
the
end
of
the
street
together
ghost
both
Ireland's
given
it
is
a
major
road.
Is
there
any
recommendations
for
Ireland's,
etc?
I
mean
it's
part
of
this.
C
C
I
G
E
E
So
no
such
section
106
agreement
was
considered
to
be
necessary
by
committee
when
we
dealt
with
the
earlier
application
for
84
years.
So
members
have
to
consider
whether
the
increase
in
16
units
is
material
and
makes
that
need
for
the
section
106
agreements
for
the
transport
for
the
traffic
regulation
to
be
necessary
and
required
for
the
for
this
particular
development.
A
Think
the
terms
are
loitering
that
what's
significant
is
20
percent.
But
if
you're
saying
that
80
didn't
require
any
of
the
decision
of
the
committee
officers
was
that
eight
he
didn't
require
any.
How
does
the
extra
20
become
a
tipping
point
for
a
fall?
But
if
there
been
some
funding
in
there
for
18
asking
for
a
20
percent
increase
in
funding
but
to
go
from
nothing
80
to
something
at
a
hundred
does
raise
concerns
Council
to
gone
so.
H
That
would
I
would
think
seem
to
be
a
reasonable
condition
to
impose,
because,
basically
we
don't
know
at
the
moment
whether
there
will
be
a
knock-on
effect
or
not,
but
we're
saying
that
if
the
conditions
in
the
we
access
Street,
given
that
it
is
the
only
access
to
that,
is,
it's
obviously
required
for
emergency
access
as
well.
If
parking
is
such
that
you
know
it's
impacting
on
the
ability
for
fire
engines
to
get
to
that
problem,
premises,
it's
impacting
on
encouraging
cycling
and
walking.
H
A
Think
one
of
my
concerns
would
be
having
checked
Google
Maps
to
see
what
kind
of
buildings
are
there
at
the
moment
is
that
I
mean
there
is
Google
Maps
on
the
Google
car
passed
by
the
significant
levels
of
parking
on
Mansfield
Street
as
it
is,
and
given
its
location
in
proximity
to
the
city
center
I
suspect,
it's
probably
quite.
If
it
is
possible
to
park
there,
it'll
be
quite
a
welder's
location.
A
So
even
if
you
did
do
the
survey
in
12
months
time
and
there
were
15
cars
Parker,
how
who's
to
say
where
their
cars
associated
with
this
or
people
are
just
using
its
free
parking
for
town,
so
I
would
suspect.
That
would
be
a
bigger
problem
for
this
location.
And
if
this
had
been
a
problem,
something
would
have
been
done
by
it
by
now.
Council
a
look
at
you
wait.
You
wait.
You
waved
a
while
ago,
it
may
have
been
in
your
response
to
councillor
Richardson
councillor
call
what
was
next.
K
Thank
You,
chair
and
I
just
point
out
that
an
increase
of
from
from
80
to
100
is
not
an
increase
of
20%,
but
of
25%.
Oh,
but
I
think
is
a
significant
increase
and
given
how
many
concerns
have
been
voiced,
around
parking,
I
think
it
is
something
we
need
to
find.
Some
answer
to
and
I
do
want
to
counter
the
horn
suggestion
and
I'm
imagining
this
this,
particularly
at
the
start
and
end
of
each
term.
When
families
are
coming
on
unloading
with
that
number
of
vehicles,
it
does
seem
fairly
potentially
chaotic
Smee.
K
So
the
travel
plan
would
be
essential
for
that
I'm.
Also,
just
as
a
point
of
information
wondering
whether
and
I
think
I've
asked
a
similar
question
before
whether
we
might
have
been
overlooking
potential
106
agreements
with
student
properties
that
clearly,
where
residential
properties
are
concerned,
it
is
quite
usual
to
expect
there
such
considerations
but
I'm,
aware
of
other
authorities
who,
with
student
accommodation,
have
used
106
conditions
in
order
to
fund
such
things
as
student,
bursaries
and
I.
L
It
possible
that
we
can
put
a
condition
on
this,
that
in
in
a
yep,
that's
in
any
advertising
and
promotion.
It
said
that
this
is
specifically
on
the
site
where
there
will
be
very
limited
cars,
and
so
the
students
who
want
to
bring
a
car
can
go
and
apply
to
some
of
the
other
places
where
they're
a
smart
car
parking,
but
that
we
encourage
that
the
promotion
of
this
has
been
in
a
car
free
area,
because
it's
so
near
the
city
I
mean
you
know.
M
It's
really
interesting
to
me
that
these
arguments
are
surfaced
today
when
they
didn't
entirely
become
clear
at
the
last
meeting
when
this
application,
the
original
application
was
approved.
Well,
you
may
not
have
been
here,
but
it
was
2016,
councillor,
Popovich
and
so
and
I
just
wonder
if
he
might
be
painting
ourselves
into
cut
into
a
corner
by
an
imposing
additional
conditions.
M
The
question
of
flood
risk
assessment,
an
exit
strategy,
is
actually
dealt
with
in
this
in
in
this
paper
and
I'm,
sorry,
I
meant
to
pick
up
the
paper
pages
25
and
26
other
people's
and
they're
quite
clear.
What
the
base
of
the
premises
will
be
above
thirteen
point
two
three
above
ordnance
datum,
which
is
the
base
requirement
for,
for
such
precautions
to
be
effective,
so
I'm
concerned
that
we
start.
A
Are
we
haven't
a
second
that
I
think
my
my
particular
thing
is:
is
that
one
I
think
the
fact
that
there
was
no
condition
on
the
original
application
puts
us
in
a
very
difficult
situation
to
do
it
now?
I
think
as
councillor
Cuthbertson
says,
the
footing
is
dealt
with.
In
fact,
in
many
ways
this
is
better
in
terms
of
flooding
than
the
original
application
was,
as
falling
the
design
it's
actually
been
lifted,
even
higher.
So
again,
on
that
same
principle,
I
feel
the
law
was
acceptable.
A
This
is
more
acceptable
because
the
building
is
actually
been
lifted
by
further
metre
from
the
one
that
already
has
its
own
approval.
So
I
think
for
those
reasons,
while
I
share
actually
other
concerns,
I
think
parking
will
be
problem
in
this
area
for
numerous
reasons,
I
think
in
terms
of
traffic
movement.
This
is
a
working
sites,
I
think
as
far
as
I'm
aware.
So
there
is
traffic
movement
they
have
already.
A
So
if
there
were
significant
problems
with
parking,
I
think
we
would've
heard
about
it
by
now
and
something
would
probably
been
address
so
I
say
I'm
happy
to
second,
it
I
think
any
condition
that
we
tried
to
pawn
while
being
worthwhile
I,
don't
think
we
will
be
able
to
defend
that
in
terms
of
if
the
applicant
challenged
it
I
think
it
would
be
an
expensive
folly
on
our
part
to
try
to
do
that.
Unfortunately,
councillor
Kovac
Jack.
E
Well,
I
can
explain
why
we
put
that
condition
up
because
they
managed
to
change
the
landscaping
scheme
and
in
the
same
way,
that
other
properties
of
the
landscaping
schemes
have
the
ability
to
change
those
schemes
without
referring
back
to
the
council.
They,
maybe
it's
a
do,
wish
to
do
the
same.
Well,
they
can't
who
is.
E
Remove
the
landscaping
with
our
plant
admission,
because
that
would
require
planning
of
issues
and
right
there
this
this
this
this
particular
condition
controls
the
type
of
plants
and
trees,
rather
than
the
fact
that
there
isn't
any
landscaping.
But
members
have
changed
the
condition
in
the
past,
which
means
that
you
know
should
they
wish
to
change
the
scheming
have
to
come
back
to
this
members,
hands
I,
guess.
M
A
N
Thank
You
chair,
there
is
no
update
other
than
to
say
that
the
applicant
has
indicated
that
negotiations
with
the
Tennis
Club
in
order
to
establish
joint
use
of
the
clubhouse
and
address
the
principal
concern
in
respect
of
the
application
previously
are
proving
fruitful
and
that
he
supports
the
recommendation,
including
draft
condition.
Six,
which
would
allow
for
that
Thank
You,
chair.
N
H
E
D
You
sure
yeah
and
the
under
the
paragraph
1
1
and
the
proposal
it
says
timber,
clap
building
with
the
reconstruction
state
group
with
the
relocation
of
an
existing
temporary
storage
building,
apart
from
the
fact
I'm,
not
quite
sure
that
they
physically
will
be
able
to
move
it
without
it
collapsing.
Is
there
anything
that
we
can
do
to
encourage
them
not
to
move
or
to
to
not
what
its
somewhere
else,
because
it
is
a
pretty
awful
building?
K
E
Because
the
buildings
already
in
existence
that
I
think
we
have
a
great
deal
of
control
over
it's
as
far
as
we're
aware,
doesn't
have
any
restrictions
on
such
usage.
So
as
long
as
it's
incidental
to
them
today,
the
sports
club
use
whether
it's
used
for
storage
or
for
gym
equipment
for
an
existing
user.
I,
don't
think
we'd
have
any
control
sending
not
through
this
planning
application,
which
only
six
to
two
old
serious,
its
precise
positioning
on
the
slides.
C
C
N
E
D
You
chair
when
we
visited
the
site
last
month
and
I
think
we
were
all
a
bit
surprised
that
they
hadn't
come
up
with
very
special
circumstances
for
a
changing
room
in
our
honor,
a
recreation
ground
where
there
were
other
changing
rooms.
I
think
now
that
there
are
some
very
special
circumstances,
I
think
this
is
perfectly
appropriate
and
as
a
safe.
Thank
you.
If
other
organizations
could
be
encouraged
to
improve
some
of
their
buildings,
it
would
it
would
help,
but
I
think
this.
This
application
is
perfectly
acceptable
and
I
happy
to
move
it.
K
C
A
And
if
first
speakers,
okay,
I'll
be
very
I,
think
I
agree
with
most
of
what's
been
said
so
far.
I
think
there
were
some
concerns
around
the
original
application
in
terms
of
whether
we
ended
up
with
having
multiple
sports
on
sides
having
some
kind
of
ad
hoc
development
where,
rather
than
the
existing
one
sort
of
changing
facilities,
we
ended
up
with
four
or
five
springing
up
as
each
individual
sport
started
to
build
their
own.
A
So
it
was
important
there
was
that
back
coverage
to
make
sure
that
the
sports
were,
where
possible,
working
together
to
minimize
the
number
of
buildings
that
will
be
on
that
side
and
I
must
admit.
I
was
surprised
by
legislation
in
NP,
P
F.
That
gives
a
a
specific
exemption
for
built
facilities
for
appropriate
facilities
for
outdoor
sport,
of
which
changing
rooms
seem
like
the
most
appropriate
facilities
for
outdoor
sports.
But
yet
that
doesn't
matter
if
they
harm
the
openness.
A
So
it
does
maintain
for
me
to
be
seen
how
maps
looked
on
the
country
to
see
how
somebody
is
to
build
some
outdoor
changing
facilities
that
don't
harm
the
openness
of
the
Greenbelt
is
after
them
they
had
to
think
of
as
glass,
which
doesn't
seem
like
the
most
appropriate
building
material
for
changing
rooms.
In
all
honesty.
So
without
what
I'm
entirely
happy
to
support,
the
recommendation
has
written
all
those
in
favor
all
those
against
animus,
that's
approved,
I,
have
no
urgent
business,
so
I'm
happy
to
declare
the
meeting
closed.