Agenda item

Demolition of existing building [Guildhall] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from City of York Council for the demolition of an existing building.

Some Members questioned if Officers had stated that the building would collapse.

They clarified that this was in the Officers’ professional opinion as the steel frame had structural weaknesses in it, and they had concerns about the foundations about the building itself.

The applicant, the Council’s Head of Commissioning and Design Services, spoke about how the external walls would need to be taken down to repair the steel frame. It was thought these repairs would cost around several thousands of pounds. It was confirmed that the costs to make the entire building safe, which had been presented to the Executive were approximately £95,000.

Other Members asked if asbestos from an opening in the roof would cause a health hazard if parts came down into the street.

The applicant stated that if the wind blew in the right direction that this could be a possibility.

Representations in objection were received from Councillor Taylor who referred to a consultant’s report from 2009 said that the building was not unsafe, nor dangerous, and another from 2015 where little had changed in the situation. He added that minutes from the Conservation Area Advisory Panel said that it would breach the Council’s policy to pull the building down. He also added that in the Officer’s report that Paragraph 133 was incomplete and did not inform Members of the specified criteria that applied including;

·        The nature of the heritage asset itself prevents all reasonable use of the site- he felt this was not true

·        No viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through marketing site-surveys had been submitted, but they had not been shown to Members.

He felt that the application should be refused as no case had been made pending a replacement scheme and it was contrary to Council policy HE5 and was against the National Planning Policy Framework Policies Paragraphs 133 and 134.

He also made reference to a bid to a possible future development from the Yorkshire Air Museum on the site. One Member suggested that this bid was not dependent on the current structure remaining on the site.

Further representations in objection were received from David Fraser, the Chief Executive of York Civic Trust. He felt that it was unnecessary and premature as demolition should be considered at the same time as development on the site. He added that the Civic Trust felt that the Committee had not been provided with adequate information on the development value of the building, on its marketing, or the minimal costs of repair to make the building safe, which was not asked in 2009 or 2015. He asked the Committee on behalf of the Civic Trust reject it or defer it.

Members asked the following questions to the Chief Executive of York Civic Trust and Officers;

·        Why the building was not listed by Historic England and why was there a lack of surviving historic detailing?

·        Why was fencing put up after the Executive made the decision to put props up?

In response the Chief Executive felt that it still had some historic merit in relation to the aviation industry. In relation to the lack of surviving historic detailing, this was due to the nature of the industrial use of the building.

Officers explained that fencing had been erected as a protective measure due to render falling from the walls, but that this was not due to the walls falling down.

In response to a question about the marketing of the site, Officers did not know how many bids had been received for the site. In regards to the Southern Gateway project, which included the site amongst its development area, a report would be due on this in late 2015.

Some Members felt that there would be significant costs to make the building safe, particularly in the case of bad weather and supported demolition. Others felt nervous about keeping the building in its current state particularly in regards to trespassers and thought that it would be highly unlikely to attract investors. The materials used in the building, particularly the asbestos sheeting on the roof and the single skinned brick wall were also a concern for some Members.

One Member proposed deferral of the application as she felt a decision would be premature given that Members did not have all the information available about the site and when read in conjunction with the upcoming Southern Gateway report to the Executive, they were likely to get more. She also felt that limited opportunities had been taken to market the site and that there had been disparities between the structural surveys and the Officer’s report.

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Reason:   In view of the severe structural difficulties with the building and the likelihood of collapse in the near future without significant supporting works (which would render the building unusable and affect pedestrian and vehicular flows along Piccadilly), the less than substantial harm to the character of the Conservation Area caused by its loss would in this case on balance be outweighed by the public benefits.