Agenda item

Conversion of part-public convenience to a café [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]

A full application by Mr Malcolm Holt for a conversion of part-public convenience to a café was presented to Members.

The Officer provided an update, clarifying that the description of the application had been amended to include the takeaway element and that three additional objections from local businesses on Gillygate had been received, all of which were similar to objections already expressed in section 3.9 of the report. Members were informed that the application had been called to the Committee by Cllr Craghill in response to public concerns raised in relation to loss of public toilet facilities and the principle of the provision of café facilities in public car parks. In response to Members’ questions, the following was also explained:

·        Paragraph 3.3 of the report referred to the comments made by the Forward Planning Team and not to the Policy R1 Retail Hierarchy and Sequential Approach itself; the development of a café use within the defined city centre was considered acceptable in principle and would not require impact assessment under the emerging Local Plan.

·        Gillygate had no separate designation in the emerging Local Plan.

·        The scope for the Committee to request a retail impact assessment of the application on Gillygate would be limited because of the wording of the policy and, if requested, the results could be meaningless given the small size of the unit in question.

·        Policy ENV2 Managing Environmental Quality (Paragraph 4.4), referring to not allowing development where future occupiers could be subject to significant environmental impacts such as noise, could include staff members working on site. However, the Air Quality Officers did not raise this in the report.

·        Specific conditions in relation to reducing crime and antisocial behaviour were outside the remit of planning enforcement.

Christopher Wilson spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the application. He highlighted that providing the facility with staffing and appropriate levels of surveillance would result with a better control of the area and could enhance its appearance for the visitors. He reiterated his willingness to tackle relevant issues such as homelessness and antisocial behaviour at the site, including through any conditions imposed by the Committee. Finally, he added that York had a small business community and flexibility was needed for any business owner to remain competitive. In response to questions, he stated that it was not possible to predict what portion of revenue / orders would be achieved by means of takeaway and that his relationship with the business running the toilet was on a landlord-tenant basis.

Jill Richards, owner of Wackers (fish & chips restaurant) at Gillygate, spoke against the application on behalf of local business owners, emphasising health and environmental impacts of the proposal: negative effect on staff members present within a proximity of idling coaches, reversing coaches that posed a danger for pedestrians across a small car park, more litter in the area, and increased risk of antisocial behaviour due to extended opening times. She also added that coaches would not switch the engines off in exchange for hot water offered by the café as they were needed to keep the air-conditioning and heating on.

Elizabeth Bakes, owner of Bakes &Co (deli and coffee shop) at Gillygate, also spoke against the application, implying that there was not enough business to support another café due to the area reaching a saturation point and stating that the Guildhall Planning Panel had already objected to the quantity of food facilities at Gillygate. She expressed her concerns that an additional establishment would have a detrimental economic impact on many local family-owned businesses and that small shops should be encouraged at Gillygate instead.

Honorary Alderman Brian Watson also spoke in objection to the application, noting considerable harm from the air pollution at the site as well as presence of vulnerable people near the prospective café. He also claimed that the unit should be considered for the indoor use only.

Matthew Greenwood, Chair of York Tour Operators’ Guild, then spoke against the application, highlighting that further reduction of the toilets would affect tourists’ perception of the city due to the fact that alternative toilet facilities at Union Terrace did not have sufficient capacity for cohorts visiting York on coaches. He also reported that Healthmatic toilets in the city centre were frequently closing before 5pm which was against the contract stipulating the 7.30am – 10.00pm opening hours.

Members discussed the arguments brought by the Officers and public speakers, concentrating on the overall picture of toilet facilities in the city centre, potential harm to vitality and sustainability of the neighbourhood as well as risk of increased level of antisocial behaviour should the application be approved. Some Members, however, were of the view that the presence of a new café could decrease the level of antisocial behaviour and would not substantially increase the competition at Gillygate. Members also agreed that putting mitigation against environmental impacts such as noise and pollution from idling coaches would be difficult to achieve.

Cllr Carr moved and Cllr Gillies seconded a motion to refuse the application and it was

Resolved:                     That the application be refused.

Reason:                        1.  The proposed additional café use, due to its location within the coach and car park, would result in harm to the vitality and viability of existing businesses in Gillygate and, as such, would fail to enhance the gateway street of Gillygate contrary to policy SS3 of the Local Plan Publication Draft (February 2018). The proposal would be contrary to policy R1 of the Local Plan Publication Draft (February 2018) which seeks to maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of the city centre and policy S5 of the Draft Development Control Local Plan (2005) which states that permission will be granted for retail and service uses only where this would not harm the vitality of individual streets.

2. The proposed café use would be located in an area where North Yorkshire Police have identified a high level of anti-social behaviour which could impact on the security of the scheme. The proposed new development has the potential to increase these levels of anti-social behaviour and vandalism and consequently the impact on the safety and well-being of staff and customers and the visual amenity and environmental quality of the area. The local planning authority is of the opinion that a management and maintenance plan would not be sufficient to mitigate against the harm to the area which would result from increased levels of anti-social behaviour.

The proposal is, therefore, contrary to paragraph 69 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that decisions should aim to achieve places which promote safe environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.

3. The proposal would result in the permanent loss of public toilet facilities in an area which currently has inadequate toilet facilities. This is contrary to policy HW1 of the Local Plan Publication Draft (February 2018) which states that development proposals which involve the loss of facilities last used for community purposes will not be supported unless it can be demonstrated that facilities of equivalent or greater capacity and quality are provided elsewhere on the site or off-site, in an area which better meets the community's needs; or the facilities no longer serve a community function.  It is considered that none of the caveats to the policy are satisfied in this case.

[Cllr Orrell left at this point in the meeting].