►
From YouTube: Planning Committee, 25 October 2017
Description
AGENDA
1. Declarations of Interest 00:02:56
2. Public Participation 00:03:05
3. Plans List 00:03:13
3a) British Sugar Corporation Ltd, Plantation Drive, York, YO266XF (15/00524/OUTM) 00:03:13
For full agenda, attendance details and supporting documents visit:
http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=132&MId=10452
A
Which
is
past
six
o'clock,
so
if
everybody's
ready,
we'll
we'll
make
a
start,
welcome
to
this
meeting
special
meeting,
the
planning
committee
Wednesday
the
25th
of
October
2017
a
few
items
of
housekeeping
to
start
with.
If
anybody
has
mobile
phones
with
them,
if
I
can
ask
them
to
turn
to
silent,
I'll
switch
them
off,
obviously
you're
free
to
tweet
during
the
meeting,
if
you
so
wish,
but
we
don't
want
to
be
disturbed
in
terms
of
toilets.
If
anybody
wants
the
toilets,
there's
something
through
this
door
here
and
on
your
left
and
in
terms
of
fire.
A
We're
not
expecting
a
firearm
believe.
So
if
fire
alarm
goes,
that
building
will
be
getting
slightly
warmer
and
I
suggest
we
leave
down
the
staircase
that
we
came
from
out
to
the
front
and
convene
outside
of
there
of
apologies.
I've
just
had
to
pocket
the
waters,
I,
don't
think
there's
any
other.
Apologies.
A
Item
two
public
participation
I
have
nobody
registered
from
the
general
public
participation
and
there's
nobody
registered
under
the
plans
list
either.
So
we'll
move
straight
on
to
the
plans
list
item
three
item
3a
and
on
this
occasion
I'm
just
gonna,
ask
for
a
quick
update
from
legal
before
we
go
into
the
office
of
update
in
terms
of
the
circumstances
around
this
particular
meeting.
B
Thank
You,
chair
members.
The
reason
for
legal
speaking
first
before
the
planners
on
this
occasion
is
that
this
is
a
unusual
situation.
Whilst
negotiation
was
taking
place
on
the
application.
That's
before
you
today
and
the
council
is
seeking
further
information
from
the
applicant.
The
applicant
owes
not
to
agree
to
extend
the
period
for
determining
it
and
instead
appealed
for
non
determination.
That
means
that
the
application
before
you
today
is
to
be
determined
by
the
Secretary
of
State
at
an
inquiry
and
not
the
council.
B
So
the
effect
of
an
on
determination,
appeal
in
law,
is
that
the
application
has
already
been
deemed
refused
by
this
council.
So
this
report
seeks
members
approval
of
the
case
for
us
to
put
to
the
inquiry
defend
that
deemed
refusal.
The
applicants
have
also
submitted
another
application
to
the
council
and
they
have
provided
further
information
negotiations
on
this.
Other
application
are
ongoing
and
that
separate
application
will
be
brought
before
members
in
due
course.
B
C
Thanks
yeah,
it's
just
a
brief
update
and
a
kind
of
summary
as
to
where
we
are
and
before
I.
Do
summarize
the
council's
position.
It's
just
like
knowledge
that
in
section
one
there
might
be
a
few
errors
in
terms
of
the
reference,
the
planning
application
number
and
when
I
first
I
draft
in
the
report,
I
was
drafting
it
for
the
original
application.
So
it's
just
to
be
clear
that,
when
were
in
the
application
were
referring
to
here
is
the
2015
to
blicket.
C
So
it
might
incorrectly
sometimes
say
it's
the
two
and
14
application
and
nothing
major
there.
Just
to
summarize
our
position
in
terms
of
not
coming
to
agreement
at
this
time
and
we're
still
in
negotiation
with
the
developers
on
things
like
minor
design,
details
and
a
language
we've
not
hugely
flagged
up
in
the
report,
because
we're
fairly
confident
we'll
resolve
them
in
the
lead
into
the
and
appeal
hearing
with
the
things
that
were
still
quite
far
apart
and
that
we've
flagged
up
for
members
in
section
five
and
six
of
the
statement
at.
C
C
And
specifically,
some
specifically
and
some
specific
figures
about
the
remediation
land,
value
and
construction
costs,
along
with
other
things
that
are
not
agreed
and
now
things
there
items
that
will
need
to
go
in
to
inform
the
viability
assessment
before
those
calculations
are
made.
So
it's
not.
It's
not
agreed
as
T
as
to
whether
it's
possible
to
provide
affordable
housing
or
not,
and
the
main
issue
within
the
section
106
agreement
are
the
clawback
provisions
required
by
the
developer
they're,
not
agreed
by
the
council.
C
We
have
concerns
that
they
can
prevent
us
from
providing
infrastructure
and
some
of
the
figures
and
not
agreed
either
and
to
assist
with
that.
We've
put
some
figures
in
at
the
end
of
the
reports
and
they're
they're,
not
final
or
fixed
figures,
they're
just
figures
to
give
an
idea
as
to
the
differences
and
they're
still
subject
to
change.
So
it's
just
to
give
that
caveat.
C
Stressed
that
there
for
information
only
because
some
of
they've
been
they've
been
considered
at
different
times.
So
when
we
do
a
106
agreement,
normally
we'd
index-linked
a
figure
and
take
the
figure
as
of
that
time,
so
I
guess
the
caveat
and
saying
is:
some
of
the
figures
were
quoting
here:
a
figures
that
we
had
a
year
ago
are
sometimes
longer
so
if
they
did
get
agreed
or
as
they
move
forward,
they
would
be.
They
would
be
updated
to
current
time
and
index-linked.
Then.
A
E
Thank
You
chair
page
12,
open
design
paragraphs
three
point,
one
through
three
point:
three
you've
outlined
a
number
of
concerns
about
best
practice
and
a
revised
document
was
submitted.
12Th
October
2017
do
those
concerns
outlined
in
those
three
paragraphs:
do
they
still
they
still
exist
or
have
they
been
addressed
in
the
document
of
12
October?
The.
C
C
We
we've
not
flagged
it
up
as
a
particular
reason
for
members
to
refuse,
because
I
think
we
feel
it's
in
the
detail
and
we
were
at
the
same
place
as
the
applicants
as
to
what
we
want
from
the
site
and
what
we
want
this
design
document
to
do
in
terms
of
informing
the
design
in
future.
So
we
don't
feel
that
we're
fundamentally
disagreed.
It's
it's
a
case
of
getting
the
detail
right
in
that
document,
so
we
we
hope
that
the
provision
we've
got
for
future
meetings
up
to
Christmas
will
stop.
D
D
We've
been
talking
about
the
British
oversight
for
a
long
time,
but
the
this
application,
however
long
we've
been
taking
to
getting
up
to
here,
is
a
huge
application
with
lots
of
elements
and
I
think
that
it's
where
the
planning
system
falls
down
in
that
they
expect
13
weeks
to
have
actually
ticked
all
the
boxes
on
on
this
I'm
pleased
to
hear
that
we're
we're
moving
closer
together,
but
there
obviously
is
some
very
considerable.
This
melons
here
that
would
cause
I
suspect
all
of
us
around
this
table.
Some
considerable
concern,
one
is
the
affordable
housing
element.
D
I,
take
on
board
the
fact
we're
still
waiting
for
viability,
figures,
but
Jonah
cannot
believe
that
a
housing
site
of
this
size
can
provide
no
affordable,
housing
and
I.
Think
the
other
problem,
of
course,
is
this
clawback
that
it
might
give
us
the
money
with
one
hand
and
then
because
we
haven't,
because
of
the
time
it's
going
to
take
to
build
out
the
site
that
if
we
haven't
done
what
they
wants
us
to
do
in
the
time
them
they'll
take
us,
but
take
it
back
again
and
I.
Don't
think
that's
acceptable
either.
F
G
Do
agree
with
councillor
Galvin
in
terms
of
this
site
can't
argue
its
critical
nature
in
terms
of
the
proposed
local
plan.
It's
one
of
the
key
sites,
it's
one
of
the
largest
sites.
Therefore,
it's
a
even
greater
concern
that
at
the
moment,
there's
no
intention
to
provide
affordable
housing.
How
are
we
going
to
meet?
You
know
our
critical
need
in
that
area
if
a
large
site
like
this
cannot
offer
affordable
housing
I'd
be
really
interested
to
see
the
remediation
cost
figures.
G
I
have
concerns
about
the
way
those
are
done
and
I
know
that
some
authorities
have
actually
looked
at
actually
publishing
that
data
I
think
it's
an
area.
We
need
to
look
at
very
very
closely
and
everything
should
be
done
in
terms
of
looking
at
initiatives
that
are
coming
out
of
government
and
any
pre-existing
initiatives
in
terms
of
trying
to
secure
some
critically
needed.
Affordable
housing
on
this
site
or
a
huge
opportunity
will
be
lost
and
a
big
impact
will
be
made
on
the
city's,
affordable
housing
provision.
H
The
profile
in
terms
of
numbers
of
cars
that
that
likely
going
to
generate
will
be
even
worse
and
when
would
otherwise
be
the
case
with
a
proper
mixture
of
communities.
So
I
think
it's
really
important
that
before
double
housing
and
the
transport
implications
adopt
a
quite
closely
I
do
have
some
concerns.
I
Thank
You
chair
I
think
that
every
one
of
us
agrees
that
York
needs
more
houses,
and
this
is
an
obvious
site
to
provide
a
lot
of
new
houses.
However,
far
be
it
from
me
to
suggest
that
the
developers
being
cynical
but
I
think
we
all
know
of
an
application
for
a
site.
That's
now
being
constructed
in
my
ward,
we're
a
much
larger
proportion
of
affordable
housing
was
asked
for,
and
the
government
inspector
came
back
and
said:
oh,
we
don't
need
any
foldable
housing
at
all
as
I
say:
I
hope
that
that
hasn't
influenced
the
developer.
I
E
E
E
A
Can
have
that
conversation
after
the
meet
I've
got
nobody
else
indicating
to
speak.
I
shall
be
very
brief.
Think
most
the
points
have
been
made,
I
think
local
government
and
playing
it
in
particular,
often
gets
accused
of
being
over
complicated,
bureaucratic
and
impenetrable
to
members
of
the
public
and
I.
A
Think
today's
meeting
is
one
of
those
occasions
where
we
would
find
it
incredibly
difficult
in
many
ways
to
explain
to
most
people
why
we're
in
the
situation
we're
in
so
I
think
the
one
thing
I
want
to
make
clear
is
that
this
committee
and
this
council
are
committed
to
delivering
on
this
particular
site.
A
lot
of
work
goes
on
board
from
offices
and
with
the
developers
to
move
this
forward.
The
situation
has
arisen
due
to
this
impasse
that
we
have
in
terms
of
what's
happening
in
terms
of
affordable,
housing
and
I.
A
Think
it's
very
important
also
to
mention
the
community
facilities,
but
not
to
send
the
message
that
anybody's
against
developing
this
site,
or
not
working
really
hard
to
get
this
forward.
I
think
that's
the
message
we
really
don't
want
to
send
from
this
committee.
We
want
the
site
delivered.
We
want
the
site
delivered
correctly.