Agenda and minutes

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

Councillor Cunningham Cross declared a personal non prejudicial interest in agenda item 4c as her husbands boss is a patron of York City Football Club.

Councillor Simpson Laing declared a personal non prejudicial interest in agenda item 4c as her daughter is a member of York Athletics Club and herself as a member of Liverpool Football Club Supporters Club.

Councillor Williams declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the agenda items  as he is employed by Yorkshire Water. He advised that he would abstain from any vote if it included a condition relating to Yorkshire Water.

Councillor Watson declared a personal non prejudicial interest in agenda item 4c as he is a sponsor of a York City Knights player. He also declared a personal interest as a Guildhall Ward Councillor in reference to the Castle Picadilly site being mentioned in the agenda reports.

Councillor D’Agorne declared a personal non prejudicial interest as an employee of York College relating to employment and training issues mentioned in the agenda reports and a personal interest as a Member of York Green Party.

To consider the exclusion of the press and public from the meeting during consideration of any part of the report in relation to agenda item 4c, during which any exempt information may be discussed.

RESOLVED:                That Members agreed to exclude the press and public from the meeting during consideration of any part of the report in relation item 4c during which any exempt information may be discussed. Members agreed to retire to a private room to avoid clearing the room of the press and public, if necessary.

It is at this point in the meeting that members of the public who have registered their wish to speak can do so. The deadline for registering is  5pm on Wednesday 16^th May 2012 Members of the public can speak on specific planning applications or on other agenda items or matters within the remit of the committee.

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

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

The Council’s Legal Officer spoke to clarify the procedure to be followed. He advised that the Committee would be considering 3 applications over the course of the meeting, all relating to the provision of retail floor space at Monks Cross. In view of the stand alone and cumulative impacts relating to each application, normal practices for debating and determining applications would vary slightly. The procedure would be as follows:

Application 11/02199/OUTM (Monks Cross Shopping Park) will be presented, together with speakers, questions and debate.

Application 11/02208/FUL (Monks Cross Shopping Park) will be presented, together with speakers, questions and debate.

Application 11/02581/OUTM (Land Including Huntington Stadium to the West of Jockey Lane, Huntington, York) will be presented, together with speakers, questions and debate.

Consideration of and debate on the cumulative impacts of all the applications.

Members to vote on application 11/02199/OUTM (Monks Cross Shopping Park outline).

Members to vote on application 11/02208/FUL (Monks Cross Shopping Park s73).

Members to vote on application 11/02581/OUTM (the Community Stadium).

Members then considered 3 reports of the Assistant Director (Planning and Sustainable Development) relating to the following planning applications, which outlined the proposals and relevant planning considerations and set out the views of the consultees and officers.

A major outline application for the erection of additional retail floorspace (class A1) comprising either extensions to existing stores, new buildings and/or new or extended internal first floors to existing stores. Alterations to car park layout, landscaping and associated highway works. Alterations to the  planning controls for the existing and proposed retail units to allow a maximum number of 31 units,  maximum food sales of 6,968 sq.m., minimum unit size of 455 sq.m.,a maximum of 8 units less than 455 sq.m., permit up to two large units (up to 4,645 sq.m. net sales area) to sell a broader range of goods than simply bulky goods. [Huntington and New Earswick Ward] [Site Visit].

Members considered a major outline application by The Monks Cross Shopping Park Trust for the erection of additional retail floor space (class A1) comprising either extensions to existing stores, new buildings and/or new or extended internal first floors to existing stores. Alterations to car park lay out, landscaping and associated highway works. Alterations to the planning controls for the existing and proposed retail units to allow a maximum unit size of 455sq.m, a maximum of 8 units less than 455.sq.m, permit up to two large units (upto 4,645 sq.m net sales area) to sell a broader range of goods than simply bulky goods.

Officers provided an update including the following information:

·        Paragraph 1.2, the floor area should read 29,408 sq.m.

·        The number of objectors and supporters of the scheme had been updated the previous evening and there were now 1793 objectors and 42 in support. The comments in the  letters of support and objection were similar to those précised in the committee report apart from a letter from Fenwick, a department store in the City Centre which included a technical advisory document from Turley Associates and expressed concern about the impact of the development on the Coppergate Centre.

·        On the issue of objections, the applicants agent had raised concerns about the lack of reference in the committee report to the community feedback report produced in January 2012 which had highlighted support for the scheme.

·        The transport reason for refusal had not been clearly worded and had been replaced (which can be found at the end of this minute item).

Representations were heard from 10 people in respect of this application and the following application putlined at agenda item 4b, as follows:

Phillip Crowe spoke in objection on behalf of York Tomorrow. He advised that the Castle Picadilly site had been in limbo for some time since the previous plans had been rejected. He argued that the approval of this application would affect the viability of the Castle Picadilly site due to the cumulative effect of out of town retail on the city centre.

James Owens of LaSelle Venture Fund, which is behind Castle Picadilly, spoke in objection. He stated that the Monks Cross applications mean a major increase in floor space and the removal of controls to allow a wider variety of goods to be sold. He advised that the city centre share of York’s retail industry had already fallen and the Monks Cross developers had not shown that the new shops cannot be accommodated in the city centre.

Paul Thompson the owner of Barnitts, a city centre store, spoke in objection to the proposals. He raised concerns about the offer of free parking at Monks Cross compared to expensive parking charges in the city centre.

John Haewood a local resident, spoke in objection. He raised concerns about the dip in trade in the city centre and urged Members to vote for a sustainable future for York, not unsustainable.

Colin Hall a local resident spoke in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56a

A major full application for the variation of condition no. 3 of approved application 3/66/650K-3/61/207G (original outline permission for Monks Cross Shopping Park) to reduce the minimum unit size, to increase the net sales area for two units and to restrict the amount of food sales. [Huntington and New Earswick Ward]

Members considered a major full application by The Monks Cross Shopping Park Trust for the variation of condition number 3 of approved application 3/66/650K6/61/207g (original outline permission for Monks Cross Shopping Park) to reduce the minimum unit size to increase the net sales area for two units and to restrict the amount of food sales.

Officers provided an update, including that the number of objectors and supporters of the scheme had been updated at 4pm the previous day and the figures were now 1367 objections and 13 in support. The comments received mainly reflected those already detailed in the committee report, however, a late letter of objection had been received from Fenwick’s department store which also included a technical advisory note from Turley Associates detailing concern about the impact on Castle Piccadilly. Officers also advised that there was an error in the report as theconclusion to the report on page 119 refers to the wrong paragraph numbers, the relevant paragraphs being 3.130 – 3.142.

Members queried the Statement of Community Involvement which had highlighted support for the scheme and the previous related application. Officers read out the summary of findings, in particular that the local residents questioned had indicated they were mainly in support, with traffic impact being the main reason for objections.

Members had no further comments or queries due to covering them in the previous item which was closely linked to this application.

Following consideration of the cumulative impact of all 3 applications on the agenda, it was moved that the application be refused, this motion was seconded. Following a vote it was resolved that:

RESOLVED:                That the application be refused.

REASON:                  1.The introduction of additional smaller units and creation of 2 large units selling an unrestricted range of goods is unacceptable because the proposed development will impact on the ability to secure investment in vacant buildings and spaces in the city centre, and particularly the Castle Piccadilly site which in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority is suitable and available for development. It is also considered that the development will have significant adverse impacts on planned investment in, and the vitality and viability of, the city centre.  . The proposed development is therefore contrary to advice within the National Planning Policy framework published on the 27^th March 2012; the objectives set out in of the City of York Core Strategy Submission (publication version 2011) in particular policies SP1, SP3, CS2, CS3, CS4,CS15 and CS17 and policies SP7b, SP9, SP10, S1, S2 and YC1 of the Development Control Local Plan approved for development control purposes April 2005.

                                    2.It is considered that the adverse effect on investment and employment in the City Centre that would result from the development would not be outweighed by employment generated on site by the development. In addition the development represents a sequentially unjustified expansion of out of town shopping, contrary to national and local planning policy; maintains unsustainable travel choices; and hinders the promotion of fairness and inclusion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56b

An outline planning application for a mixed-use development comprising, the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a 6,000 seat community stadium with conference facilities (use class D2) and community facilities (use classes D1 non-residential institution, D2 assembly and leisure and B1 office), retail uses (use class A1), food and drink uses (use classes A3/A4 & A5) recreation and amenity open space, with associated vehicular access roads, car parking, servicing areas and hard and soft landscaping. [Huntington and New Earswick Ward] [Site Visit].

Members considered a major outline application by Oakgate (Monks Cross) Limited for a mixed use development comprising of the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a 6,000 seat community stadium with conference facilities  (use class D2) and community facilities (use classes D1 non residential institution, D2 assembly and leisure  and B1 office), retail uses (use class A1), food and drink uses (use classes A3/A4 & A5) recreation and amenity open space, with associated vehicular access roads, car parking, servicing areas and hard and soft landscaping.

The Director of City Strategy spoke to provide guidance to Members, he reminded them that the application is of an unusual nature and many aspects of the application are unacceptable in planning terms but the package of benefits expected to be secured from the stadium is significant. He advised that if Members consider the harm to outweigh the benefits then the application should be refused, or to approve if this is not considered to be the case. The committee report was intended to provide appropriate guidance to assist members in their deliberations.

Officers provided an update including the following information:

·        Since the committee report was finalised and circulated to members a number of consultation responses had been received, including one from Hugh Bayley MP which had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting and is attached to the online version of the agenda for public viewing.

·        Marks and Spencer had submitted a further letter outlining their intention to prioritise additional investment in their Parliament Street store should the Monks Cross development go ahead.

·        The non-determination notice issued by the Highways Agency as mentioned in paragraph 2.80 of the officer report had now been lifted following a further formal response received on  15^th May 2012.

·        The Highways Agency have issued a TR110 direction which asked that if the application is granted then the conditions set out within the TR110 should be included.

·        Paragraphs 2.97 and 2.98 of the Committee report refer to the number of letters received in objection and support. As at 4pm on the 16^th May the totals stood at 2,967 in support and 2,405 in objection. Due to the volume of letters and emails received Members were asked to be aware that they had not been checked for duplication and that the comments were similar issues to those referred to in the committee report; however a late letter had been received from Fenwick with a technical advisory document from Turley Associates in addition to expressing the same general objections to the scheme about the impact of the development on the Coppergate Centre.

·        There was an error in the committee report at paragraph 3.214 (page 199 of the agenda). The final sentence of this paragraph had a word missing and should of read ‘This would not provide for the increase in direct bus services that are considered appropriate to the scale and attraction of Monks Cross as a primary destination’.

Representations were heard from 35 people in respect of this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56c