Agenda item

Erection of 4 buildings comprising 127 flats (C3), office (B1) use and office or restaurant (B1 or A3)  uses following the demolition of existing office building. [Micklegate Ward]

Members considered a major full application by Palace Capital (Developments) Ltd for the erection of 4 buildings comprising 127 flats (C3), office (B1) use and office or restaurant (B1 or A3) uses following the demolition of the existing office building.

Officers gave a verbal update, which included a correction to condition 2 and details of a consultation response from Historic England. They also circulated a letter from Historic England and a written response to this letter from the applicants, which were attached to the online agenda following the meeting.

Neil Sinclair, the applicant, spoke to explain that although they already had planning approval to convert Hudson House it was felt it would be more efficient to demolish and rebuild. They stated that there had been positive feedback from residents and that high quality office space would help to drive inward investment.

In response to Member questions he stated:

·        That, if they were to offer both quality office space and affordable housing, the scheme would become unviable.

·        They aimed for a BREEAM rating of ‘very good’.

·        The detailed scheme showed an open route for public access but they would be happy to accept a condition on this if Members were minded to do so.

·        In respect of the line of the train tracks that once crossed the site, the proposal had a similar layout to the current building and would have very little impact on these views.

During debate some Members raised the following points:

·        There were great benefits derived from retaining public access to Toft Green.

·        High quality office space would help to drive better paid jobs which the city needed, and there was an understanding that the scheme would not be viable if it were to offer both office space and affordable housing.

·        Some Members felt that there was an argument for retaining the whole development as Grade A office space as it was an opportunity to prove there was a real demand for this type of space in the city.

Resolved:  That the application be approved as per the conditions in the Officer’s report (with the plans condition updated to refer to the last amendments), and with an additional condition relating to managed public access through the site.

Reason:    

                             i.        The revised scheme would not harm on heritage assets. Where the proposed building is close to the Grade I listed City Walls due to the design of the scheme, and its massing and footprint, there would not be harm to the setting of the City Walls, and the  extra massing on the Toft Green side would not harm the townscape and there are benefits to the character and appearance of the conservation area – enhanced connectivity and landscaping, provision of a mix of uses that would enhance viability, and built form of reasonable quality and sympathetic materials.  

                            ii.        The absence of a five year housing land supply as required by the NPPF triggers the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the second part of paragraph 14 of the NPPF. This states that planning permission should be granted unless i) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or ii) specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

                           iii.        The proposals are acceptable in principle and conditions can be applied to ensure there would be no undue harm with regards amenity, impact on the highway network, ecology and flood risk.