Agenda and minutes
Venue: The George Hudson Board Room - 1st Floor West Offices (F045). View directions
Contact: Angela Bielby Democracy Officer
Note: Adjorned from Thursday 8 September 2022 at 18:44
Northern House Rougier Street York [22/00098/FULM] PDF 678 KB
This application shall be considered from the point at which the meeting adjourned on 8 September 2022 at 18:44 with questions from the Committee to the Applicant. Please note that this report remains unchanged from the report published for the meeting on 8 September 2022.
Demolition of 1 - 9 Rougier Street and erection of mixed use development including 153 apartments (Use Class C3), offices (Use Class E), visitor attraction (Use Class F1), aparthotel with 88 rooms (Use Class C1) with associated landscaping and public realm improvements - (resubmission) [Micklegate Ward]
The Head of Planning and Development Services noted that written representations received following the meeting on 8 September 2022 and the full Financial Viability Assessment (FVA) had been circulated to Committee Members during the Adjournment Period. Concerning paragraph 5.14 of the Committee Report, it was clarified that the scheme would be fully electric. In response to a Member question regarding lobbying, the Head of Planning and Development Services confirmed that written representations had been accepted.
Members were given a precis of the meeting on 8 September, noting that consideration had been given to access and space requirements, density, visitor numbers, archaeology, and energy strategy (including air source heat pumps, photovoltaic and heating). Questions to the Applicant then resumed. The Agent for the Applicant and colleagues were asked and clarified that:
· There was a variety of energy saving and sustainability measures in the scheme. Due to the location of the site, it was not possible to use photovoltaic and the scheme would be using air source heat pumps and electric heating. It was noted that the air source heat pump would increase the BREAMM rating and that it would located on a compound on the roof.
· Concerning the possibility of valuable archaeological finds, the applicants were relying on the experience of the archaeological team. It was noted that Conditions 5 and 6 covered archaeology and there was a degree of uncertainty with the archaeology with finds dealt with as they occurred.
· Regarding the FVA stating that the scheme was unviable, the different types of viability assessments was explained. It was clarified that there was £6million for the dig and that York Archaeological Trust (YAT) had taken a 10 year view of it. It was further clarified that the £2million figure for the dig was from the previous scheme.
· The overall question of viability related to the S106 obligations and the viability assessment came up with a £24-26million deficit.
· The viability assessment had been carried out using a standard viability assessment. The NPPF guidance was outlined and it was added that the developers were taking a longer term approach to make the scheme viable. If during the life of the scheme it became viable, the S106 contribution for affordable housing could be revisited as part of the overage.
· The scheme was being assessed using the standard methodology in the guidance.
· With reference to the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) methodology for the excavation for the site, it was explained that to widen the size of the excavation would have a greater impact on the site. Reference was made to previous reports on the archaeology of the site and a Member noted the questionability of the location of the Roman road and it was explained that it was highly likely that the bridge was located onwards from Tanner Row.
· The stepped entrance at one access point was because of different ground levels. The stepped access was expected to be mainly used for deliveries but could also be used by the general public.